1920-06-23

OF THE DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA FOURTH SESSION-THIRTEENTH PARLIAMENT 10-11 GEORGE V, 1920 IN FIVE VOLUMES

Volume I:: Pages 1-1034	Volume II: Pages 1035-2002


Volume III:: Pages 2003-3078	Volume IV: Pages 3079-4017


Volume V:: Pages 4019-4591



VOLUME CXLV


[Stage Direction]
\

\
>
House of Commons debates
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, June 23, 1920.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. NEWTON W. ROWELL (President of the Privy Counci): I beg to lay upon the Table a statement of the application of the classification of the inside service, that is the details of the application that would be included in Civil Government Estimates of the various departments. In connection with thb matter I desire to add a word of explanation which will make clear to the members of the House one or two matters which, but for that explanation, would not be clear in the document presented. In the past a portion of the work of .the Archives Branch - that is the outside branches of the service-has not been included under the head of Civil Government. Under the reclassification they are all brought under the head of Civil Government; therefore the details of this item show a total substantially in excess of the amount appearing under Civil Government in the printed Estimates. That is the explanation. The full details will be given when these Estimates come before the House.
Mr. ROBB:: Will there be a corresponding reduction in the Estimates for the outside service?


Mr. ROWELL:: There will be a corresponding reduction in the Estimates fob the outside service. In connection with the Department of Militia and Defence a somewhat similiar condition-exists. They have brought in under the head of Civil Government certain branches of the service that were organized during the war, which have been paid out of the demobilization appropriation prior to this date, but which must be continued now that the war is over. Therefore they are brought in under the head of Civil Government, and consequently the total amount .now shown is substantially in excess of the 256
amount of the Civil Government estimate brought down in the main Estimates. I should also add with reference to the Militia Department items that I understand the application of the classification as given, is the application as proposed by the Department of Militia and Defence. It has not been approved by the Civil Service Commission, and therefore it is merely the tentative proposal of the Department. Then there is one or two Departments in which the classification is not yet complete and by reason of that fact they are not included in the statement which I beg to lay upon the Table.



QUESTIONS.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
RIVIERE St. PIERRE.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. McMAiSTER:
Fcxr a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and reports touching the issuing of permits for the export of sugar, whether with refineries or those acting for them or with purchasers or those acting for them.
Mr. CHISHOLM:: For a copy of letters, telegrams, petitions and documents of all kinds which passed between the Department of Public Works and any person during the years 1918, 1919, 1920, in any way referring to improvements made on Grand Etang Harbour, N.E.


UNAUTHORIZED WEARING OF RETURNED SOLDIERS' BUTTONS.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. R. C. COOPER (Vancouver S.):: I
would like to ask the Minister of Militia what setps have been taken to prevent the unauthorized wearing of returned soldiers buttons? It is a question of great interest to all returned soldiers in Canada in view of the finding of Magistrate Saunders in Calgary lately.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Militia):: The unauthorized use of military buttons was prohibited by an Order in Council passed by the Government in April 1919, and penalties of $500 fine, and imprisonment for six months, were provided with respect to any person who, without proper authority, made use of these buttons. The penal clause of that Order in Council lapsed with a number of other Orders in Council which were passed under authority of the War Measures Act, some time last January, so that from January up to the present time there has been no penalty upon those who, without lawful authority, have been wearing these buttons. In the Act which this House passed a few days ago, however, it will be noted that in Section 10 severe pernalties are provided, and as soon as the Bill in question, No. 137, has been assented to these penalties will be enforced throughout Canada.


ALLEGED SUNDAY WORK AT THE PRINTING BUREAU.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. JOSEPH ARCHAMBAULT (Chambly-Vercheres):: I would like to inquire from
the President of the Privy Council whether it is true that last Sunday employees of the Printing Bureau were forced to work by orders of the President of the Privy Council? I hope for the sake of my hon. friend's reputation that my information is incorrect.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Inasmuch as the information which my hon. friend undertakes to impart to the House is frequently incorrect I may say that this is as incorrect as usual. There is no foundation for the statement.


MAPLE PRODUCTS ACT-CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Mr. Rowell moved the second reading of and concurrence in an amendment by the Senate to Bill No. 28 respecting maple products.
Mr. FIELDING:: What is the nature of
the amendment?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The amendment proposed by the Senate is to add another section to the Bill as Section 5. The new section is as follows:
Section 17 of the Food and Drug Act, 1920, will apply to any prosecution under subsection 1 of Section 2 of this Act.
Subsection 1 of section 2 provides a penalty for manufacturing, selling, keeping for sale, or exposing for sale, any article of food resembling or being an imitation of maple syrup or maple sugar which is not pure maple syrup or pure maple sugar. The effect of the amendment of the Senate is to provide that the clause in the Food and Drug Act which permits a man charged with violating the Act to prove that he bought the goods in the condition in which he sold them, that he believed them to be of the character and description of which he sold them, to set that up as a defence. In other words, it permits a man who has acted bona fide, where the violation of the law is purely technical, to set up that defence, and it enables the magistrate to acquit him. I see no objection to the amendment.
Amendment concurred in.


MILITIA PENSION ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. Hugh Guthrie (Minister of Militia) Bill No. 197 to amend the Militia Pension Act was read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon.-Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Oh section 1-subsection forbidding duplication of pensions repealed:
Hugh Guthrie: This Bill is brought in in accordance with the recommendation of the Pensions Committee which has recently been dealing with the matter. Last session, without giving very great consideration to the proposal, Parliament passed an Act to repeal section 25 of the Pensions Act, which section provided that:
The pension to a widow shall be as follows:- the widow of a colonel, five hundred dollars; of a lieutenant-colonel, foui* hundred and fifty dollars; of a major, three hundred and fifty dollars; of a captain, two hundred and fifty

dollars; of a lieutenant or second lieutenant, two hundred dollars; of a warrant officer, one hundred dollars.
By subsection 2 of sectibn 25 of the Act passed last session it (was enacted:	,
That if a person is entitled to a pension, gratuity or allowance under this Act, and is also entitled to a pension, gratuity or allowance under any other Act passed by the Parliament of Canada, such person, or in the case of a child, the parent, or guardian or tutor of such child, shall elect which pension, gratuity or allowance he desires to accept, but no person shall receive two pensions, gratuities or allowances.
The Pensions Committee which has recenty devoted a great deal of time and attention to the whole question of pensions has recommended that the amendment passed last session he repealed. The effect of that will he to restore section 25 of the Militia Pension Act, which I have just read.
Bill reported without amendment, read the third time and passed.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Newton W. Rowell (President of the Privy Council) Bill No. 196 to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act was read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon.- Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-proviso forbidding duplication of pensions repealed:
Newton Wesley Rowell: The object of this Bill is [DOT] to carry out the report of the Committee on Pensions and Re-establishment, 'and it is to the same effect as the Bill already approved by way of amendment to the Militia Pension Act. Under the Act passed last session we required that in case of two pensions being paid that the pensioner should elect which pension would be taken. The proviso in the Act is contained in section 8 and is as follows:
Provided, however, that the amount of any pension, gratuity or allowance which any member of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police receives or is entitled to receive or apply for m respect of any injury received by him while serving in the military, naval or air forces aforesaid shall be deducted from any pension, Srat^ltJ or allowance to which such member would be entitled under the said Act, other than a pension for years of service, irrespective of any mflmuty of mind or (body or bodily injury [DOT] and no widow or child of any such membe^ who received, or is entitled to receive or apply for, any pension, annuity, gratuity or allowance in consequence of the death, incapacity or injury of any such member while serving in the forces aforesaid shall be entitled to any pension, annuity or allowance under the said Act.
256J
That section carried out the recommendation of the Committee on Pensions last year, but the committee has now recommended a change, and we are but giving expression to its recommendation in striking out that proviso.


Sir SAM HUGHES:: In the case of a man dying in-the interval, would the family become entitled to the pension under the old Act and be obliged to submit to its provisions, or would thie amendment apply?


Newton Wesley Rowell: In view of the recommendation of the Pensions Committee such a case would be reco*sidered in the light of this amendment.
Bill reported without amendment, read the third time and passed.


INDIAN ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill No. 14 to amend the Indian Act (as amended by special committee)-Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On Section 1-
Mr. F. B. STAOEY (Fraser Valley):: I desire, Sir, to make a few observations on the general principle and purpose of this Bill, but in order to do so at this juncture-


The CHAIRMAN:: Mr. Stacey bad risen just before the Speaker left the Chair, but was not noticed, and the House went into committee. I feel sure that the unanimous consent of the committee will be given him to speak on the general principle of the Bill.
The committee gave unanimous consent.


Frank Bainard Stacey: I would not detain the House at this time to discuss this matter were it not for the fact that this Bill brings to the front certain phases of the Indian question which are very vital at the present time in British Columbia; and because certain ex parte presentations of the case have been made to many people in Eastern Canada. Therefore I feel constrained to give some facts relative to the general situation in the province of British Columbia.
As was pointed out when the Bill received its first reading it contains two main features, first, the clause dealing with compulsory education, and second, the clause providing for the enfranchisement of certain Indians who are now wards of the Government. The passage of this Bill will make a very decided advance in the policy of Canada in respect to our Indian popula-

tion. I have heard it stated, Mr. Chairman, that Canada has no clearly defined Indian policy. In other words, that while the Government in co-operation with the churches of the country has sought to improve the moral and social status of the Indian youth, she has not made any adequate provision for their full and subsequent citizenship. This Bill is ian honest and carefully wrought out measure to promote, with reasonable celerity, the social and civic welfare of the descendants of the original inhabitants of this country.
The native has been and is in many ways under-rated and misjudged, possiblv because he differs in many important respects from the white man, but those differences are mainly the results of generations of training, environment, and natural or race characteristics. When we consider his history and understand his character, we find many strong mental and moral qualities that promise well for his future development and citizenship. At the same time there are certain obvious defects in his mentality which demand from us as his guardians kindness and consideration, to enable him to reach the largest measure of self-adjustment and independence.
The Indian is by nature very strongly domestic in his habits. He is a faithful friend and possesses in a high degree the artistic temperament, as evidenced by the dexterity of the women and by the style of public address used by the Indian orator. But he is slow to move, has little initiative, and is allnost devoid of the economic instinct. Therefore it may be regarded as incumbent upon us, by reason of these existing conditions, to do our utmost to help him realize and enjoy what we conceive to be the duties and responsibilities of Canadian citizenship.
There are about 100,000 Indians in Canada; approximately one-quarter of these are in British Columbia. It is of those and those only, Mr. Chairman, and of their relation to this Bill that I propose now to speak. These Indians represent all grades and conditions of civilization and progress, from the aboriginal state to comparative social and financial comfort. I understand that one Indian of British Columbia bought 525,000 worth of Victory Bonds last fall. It is estimated that probably less than one-half of these Indians have ever had an opportunity to secure even a rudimentary education, and of those who have had the opportunity a very considerable number have refused to attend the school provided.

There are seven or eight linguistic stocks in the province, each of which has several distinct dialects. These stocks vary in intellectual capacity, as they do in other respects. Some, indeed', are of very high order, mentally alert, analytical, vigorous, and capable of great development under favourable conditions. But it is worthy of note that while there are many natives who are financially easy and many more who are intellectually qualified to a very high degree, not a single Indian from British Columbia has up to the present time made application for, enfranchisement. When it is noted that 300 Indians in the Dominion at the present time have applied for enfranchisement the question naturally arises: why are none from British Columbia included in that number? One reason that may be assigned-I do not say the only one -is that an unfortunate state of affairs exists in British Columbia between certain Indian tribes on the one hand and the province of British Columbia and the Dominion of Canada on the other. Bill No. 13 which has been before this House is an attempt to remove the difficulties existing on the former account, whereas Bill No. 14 proposes or aims to promote the social and civic welfare of the individual Indian. In all fairness it must be said that a number of Indians from British Columbia appeared 'before your committee to oppose the passage of this Bill. But with equal candour it must be stated that it was soon discovered, upon their own admission, that their opposition was not really against the provisions of the Bill; for more than one of them stated that they did not know anything about those provisions. Their attitude was based, rather, upon the twofold objection as set forth by their counsel, Mr. O'Meara: first, that they formed a kind of protectorate under the British Crown and therefore this Parliament had no authority to pass this Bill-or, inferentially, any other Bill-affecting the allied tribes of British Columbia; second, upon the ground that they claimed tribal ownership under aboriginal title and Royal Proclamation of 1763 and were entitled to an interest in all the lands of the province. I propose now, Mr. Chairman, to state to the committee as clearly as I am able, not in the learned language of the lawyer but in the simpler speech of the layman, the condition of affairs in British Columbia in so far as they relate to the two points presented to your ^committee, as mentioned a moment ago.
It is necessary for us to review very briefly the history of the settlement and de-

velopment of the Coast province. With reference to the entire Pacific coast, the first explorers came from Spain and Russia. Those from Spain explored the coast line of Mexico and the Pacific States and sailed as far north as the Aleutian islands, where there are still to he found certain geographical names of Spanish origin. The Russians, on the other hand, explored the Alaskan coast and sailed as far south as California. About the same time, or a little later, Captain Cook, Mears and others from. England explored' the coast line from the mouth of the Columbia river northward, including parts which are now British Columbia, for example, the Queen Charlotte islands, and all explorers including those from England, claimed the territory discovered by simply landing and formally taking possession in the name of their sovereign, oust as D'Arcy McGee described Jacques Cartier:
In the forests of the North, while his townsmen mourned his loss,
He was rearing on Mount Royal the fleur-de-lis and Cross.
After the American Revolution, England's activities were greatly lessened on this continent by reason of the French Revolution, which continued to occupy her time and strength down to and including the earlier years of the last century. In the meantime the fur traders of the world had been looking with longing eyes to the wealth of the Pacific coast. The charter of the Hudson Bay Company did not permit them to extend their operations west of the Rockies, but the old Northwest Company had secured a lease on what is now the mainland of British Columbia. About one hundred years ago the Hudson Bay Company and the Northwest Company joined forces1, which gave the former a footing on the Coast. In 1843 Vancouver island was leased to the Hudson Bay Company, and soon they established a post on the present site of the city of Victoria, and in 1849, Vancouver island was made a Crown colony.
What was then called British Columbia, namely, the mainland and Queen Charlotte islands, was made a Crown colony in 1858, and in 1866 the two colonies were united and five years later British Columbia entered Confederation.
Now, it is impossible for us to understand the British Columbia Indian question without some idea of its development through the successive periods I have just outlined. First, let us bear in mind that when the discoverers claimed the territory and formally took possession, the natives were
recognized, not as owners of the land, but as inhabitants of the country. They had absolutely no conception of ownership, as we understand the term. Then, a lttle later, when the territory came under the sway of the Hudson Bay Company, the same attitude and relation was recognized and maintained.
. It must further be borne in mind that if we consider the relation of the Indian tribes to the Dominion, there is no fixed date which may be regarded as the time at which the whole question was definitely decided or settled. As a matter of fact, their present status is the result of long and gradual growth, just as the English constitution is the development of centuries and our own present national status is the outcome of natural growth subsequent to Confederation. So, in a similar manner, it can be stated that the present relation of the Indian tribes to this country has been the result of a century or more of mutual understandings and arrangements through, first, the Imperial Government, then, the Colonial Government and finally, the Dominion or Provincial Government and, indeed, with many tribes treaties are made. They, each in turn, dealt generously with the natives who were always regarded as the country's wards.
The allied tribes of British Columbia, as set forth in a petition presented to the House of Commons, claim tribal ownership of the land under aboriginal title, and this claim appears to be based upon the proclamation of King George III in 1763. This proclamation was issued after the conquest of Canada to establish His Majesty's Government in the newly conquered territory. The proclamation states that it is issued for the purpose of establishing a Government in the extensive and valuable acquisitions in America secured by the Treaty of Paris.
It is, perhaps, needless to point out that the French made no claim to what is now the province of British Columbia. Thirty years afterward, or in 1793, Captain Vancouver landed on the island that now bears his name, and in the following year McKenzie made his overland journey to the coast.
Regarding the proclamation itself, it was repealed by subsequent Acts of the Imperial Parliament, courts were set up, and a system of government was gradually developed. It is a well-kpow fact that the Hudson Bay Company always treated the Indians generously. It was in their interests,

The Indians have, in fact, been held to be the special wards of the Crown, and in the exer-oise of this guardianship government has, in all cases where it has been desirable for the interests of the Indians, set apart such portions of the Crown lands as were deemed proportionate to, and amply sufficient for, the requirements of each tribe ; and these Indian Reserves are held by Government, in trust, for the exclusive use and benefit of the Indians resident thereon.
And further, and even more emphatic:
But the title of the Indians in the fee of the public lands, or of any portion thereof, has never been acknowledged by government, but on the contrary, is distinctly denied. In no case has any special agreement been made with any of the tribes of the mainland for the extinction of their claims of possession; but these claims have been held to have been fully satisfied by securing to each tribe, as the progress of the settlement of the country seemed to require, the use of sufficient traots of land for their wants for agricultural and pastoral purposes.
The first Lieutenant-Governor of the province of British Columbia was the Honourable J. W. Trutch, and in a letter addressed to Sir John Macdonald in October of 1872, he wrote as follows:
Then as to Indian policy I am fully satisfied that for the present the wisest course would be to continue the system which has prevailed hitherto only providing increased means for educating the Indians and generally improving their condition, moral and physical. The Canadian system-
-that is, the Eastern system-
-as I understand it will hardly work here. We have never bought out any Indian claims for lands, nor do they expect we should, but we reserve for their use and benefit from time to time traots of sufficient extent to fulfil all their reasonable requirements for cultivation or grazing. If you now commence to buy out Indian title to the lands of British Columbia you would go back of all that has been done here for thirty years past and would be equitably bound to compensate the tribes who inhabited the districts now settled, formed by white people equally with those in the more remote and uncultivated portions. Our Indians are sufficiently satisfied and had better be left alone as far as a new system towards them is concerned. Only give us the means of educating them by teachers employed directly by the Government as well as by aiding the efforts of the missionaries now working among them.
Some time after British Columbia entered Confederation, what is known as the "Land Question" became a vital issue in the province. The Dominion Government had granted to the Indians east of the Rockies reserves amounting to a grant per family of some 80 acres, while on the western slope of the Rockies, where reserves had been granted, it had amounted to some 20 acres per family.
While this may appear on the face of it to suggest larger generosity on the part of 
the Dominion than obtained in the province, a knowledge of local hunting conditions and the comparative value of the land concerned would remove such a criticism. However, leaving that aside, the Indians complained that they had not received as much land as had been granted to other tribes across the Rockies, and many of them and others who were supporting their claims pressed very strongly for a recognition of an Indian title and for treatment similar to that which the Indians to the east of the Rocky mountains received.
As great dissatisfaction existed over the allotment of reserves, the Provincial and Dominion Governments made an agreement in 1875, which led to the appointment of Reserve Oommissions, whose duty is was to set aside reserves under agreement, one of the provisions of which reads as follows:
That each reserve shall be held in trust for the use and benefit of the nation of Indians to which it has been allotted and in the event of any material increase or decrease hereafter of the members of a nation occupying a reserve, such reserve shall be enlarged or diminished, as the case may be, so that it shall bear a fair proportion to the members of the nation occupying it. The extra land required for any reserve shall be allotted from Crown lands and any land taken off a reserve shall revert to the province.	[DOT]
This provision gave rise to What is known as the reversionary interest of British Columbia in Indian reserves.
As time passed, the claim of the Indians and their friends that they had title to the provincial lands was constantly pressed and in more recent years has been advocated by counsel in the employ of certain Indians and their friends.
Shortly after the appointment of the present Deputy Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, the question of the Indian title in British Columbia became urgent by reason of strong representations made to the Government by certain influential persons and interested organizations. Recommendations were, in consequence, made to the Government, which were adopted by an Order in Council dated June, 1914, and which still stand as the proposition of the Government to the Indians, and the conditions of the Order in Council are as follows:
1.	The Indians cf British Columbia shall, by their chiefs or representatives, in a binding way, agree, if the court, or, on appeal, the Privy Council, decides that they have a title to lands of the province, to surrender such title, receiving from the Dominion benefits to be granted for extinguishment of title in accordance with past usage of the Crown in satisfying the Indian claim to unsurrendered territories, and to accept the finding of the Royal
JUNE 23, 19i20
Commission on Indian Affairs in British Columbia as approved by the Government of the Dominion and the province as a full allotment of reserve lands to he administered for their benefit as part of the compensation.
2.	That the province of British Columbia by granting' the said reserves as approved shall be held to have satisfied all claims of the Indians against the province.
That the remaining considerations shall be provided and the cost thereof borne by the Government of the Dominion of Canada.
3.	That the Government of British Columbia shall ibe represented by counsel, that the Indians shall be represented by counsel nominated and paid by the Dominion.
4.	That, in the event of the court or Privy Council deciding that the Indians have no title in the lands of the province of British Columbia, the policy of the Dominion towards the Indians shall be governed by consideration of their interests and future developments.
So that in any case the Indian stood to win.
It (will be remembered that one provision of the 13th clause of the Union negotiations provided that the Dominion should carry out such a policy in the interest of the Indians that would be at least equal to that which had Ibeen pursued by the Crown colony prior to 1871. The fact should be emphasized that while the British Columbia Indians are not in possession of a documented treaty, they bave always enjoyed the substance of a treaty. Provision has been made for their education; they have been protected on their reserves; irrigation and dyking have received attention and they have been encouraged in agriculture and fruit-growing and in general, the progressive policy, which has governed the Crown in its relation to the natives of other parts of the country, has been extended to the Indians of British Columbia in no unstinted degree.
Further, ever since the province entered the Union, yearly appropriations have been made by Parliamnt to carry out the policy of the Government with reference to the Indians' of British Columbia.
During the last 20 years, $4,632,288.14 have been expended for Indian purposes in British Columbia, so that as a matter of fact, a policy much more generous than that adopted by the Crown colony has been in operation during the days of Confederation.
A consideration of the foregoing facts has fully satisfied me that the objection to this advanced programme as presented by their counsel before your committee and widely promulgated throughout the country, is groundless, and that the present policy and programme of the Government in its efioTt to bring them into the Tights and privileges of full Canadian citizenship is the policy which will commend itself, not only to the best thnking and most progressive Indians but to their true and real friends throughout the country.
I was strongly impressed with a remark made by Mr. Soott, whether personal or official, I am not prepared to say, 'but in my opinion it presented the ideal and correct solution of the whole Indian problem, when he stated that he hoped, in time, not in his day, not perhaps for 100 years hence, but some day, in Canada, there Would be no Indian problem. The Indians would all be absorbed into the nation and take their place in the social, economic and civic life of the community, and of the state, on a par with all other citizens.
And now, coming to consider the two main provisions of the Bill, le't ns look at the actual conditions. 'The Deputy Superintendent General advised your committee that the Reserve Day 'Schools in the West were practically a failure. The children were kept at home for the slightest reason or excuse. Irregularity in attendance, the bane of all teachers, prevailed everywhere. In fact, teachers were mildly buying the attendance of the children, a ruinous policy, and worse principle. The Deputy Superintendent General further stated that the Indian school system is somewhat peculiar in that the churches co-operate with the department in the work of education and he added:
"I have always been In favour of that, because of the success which has attended the work and which Is due in a great measure to the co-operation of the churches."
He further added that in 1910, when Mr. Oliver was minister, he called all the heads of the denominations concerned-the Anglicans, Roman Catholics, Methodists and 'Presbyterians-to Ottawa and they had a conference, and there has 'been a decided improvement as a result. The churches are conducting 'boarding schools under a contract system, the Government then consenting to an increase in the per capita grant, which is not now sufficient to meet the cost of living, hut the churches have loyally made up the deficiency out of their own resources.
At that time, Mr. Oliver agreed to spend a certain amount every year in the erection of new buildings and this policy was continued by the Borden 'Government and Parliament was very generous in its appropriations until the war broke out.
With regard to the Industrial and Boarding Schools as carried on by co-operation

with the churches operating in the province, there are 3 Anglican, 2 Presbyterian, 3 Methodist and 8 Roman Catholic. The buildings required for the carrying on of this work have been very largely provided by the churches concerned. The Government has contributed $160,000 towards the erection of buildings for the Roman Catholic chuTch and $44,000 for the construction of those operated by the Presbyterian church, while up to the present, the Anglican and Methodist bodies have built their own residential schools.
Roughly speaking, one-third of the total cost involved in carrying on these residential schools has been and is supplied by the churches themselves and although the cost of maintenance during the last 4 or 5 years, has been greatly increased, such extra outlay has been borne entirely by the churches and the Government has maintained the same per capita grant that obtained prior to the (war.
I mention these facts mainly for the purpose of pointing out the importance of the fact that the disinterested and patriotic educators of the Indian population of the West are practically ta unit in strongly urging the Government to adopt a compulsory educational system, in so far as it affects the attendance of the children of the native population.
It cannot perhaps be expected for obvious reasons that they would take a similar position or indeed any pronounced attitude upon the question of the enfranchisement of these Indians. However, we do know that many who have been a long while engaged in the work of Indian education and understand their character and habits thoroughly, are strongly of the opinion that some such advanced legislation as is provided for in the Bill, should be enacted. Their ground for this opinion is well taken and, one reason is as follows:
The Indian boy or girl when leaving the school, say at the age of 16 or 18, naturally returns to his or her home among the tribe, and having no civic or individual goal to reach as a citizen in the community, there is necessarily more or less deterioration. In fairness, however, to the work of the schools of the country, it should be said that the best type of Indian home life follows the union of young men and women who have both had their training in these industrial schools.
Now, it is not believed by the committee or the department, or indeed by any one, that any wholesale process of enfrancliise-

ment will follow the passage of this Bill, or that any arbitrary method ioif compelling certain Indians to at once assume the duties of citizenship will follow, but it is believed, and very strongly believed, that it is necessary for this department to have and exercise the power of initiative, so that when these people are in a position to assume their proper place in the life of the aoam-try, the machinery of the Government shall enable them to do so, and in this connection let me say it was a matter of very great satisfaction to your committee to learn that almost every Indian who spoke declared his unbounded confidence in the Deputy Superintendent General in fact, one British Columbia Indian stated in a very unique and emphatic manner that if he could only be assured that Mr. iScott would live forever, he did not care what kind or amount of legislation was passed by the Parliament, that he knew it would be all right; so long as Mr. Scott was there, they would be well treated.
Mr. Chairman, I have reached the conclusion that the real friend of the British Columbia Indians is not the man who encourages them in the mistaken idea that they are independent of the Canadian Parliament, and that they have some legal claim on the lands of the province, and who takes their money and the money of other well-intentioned friends of the Indian in order that he may continue this agitation and develop a case, which already the Imperial Privy Council has declined to consider.
I repeat, Sir, that the real friend of the British Columbia native is not the man who pursues such a policy. He may be actuated by philanthropic and disinterested motives but I do not know a man in British Columbia who understands the situation that believes it.
The real friends of the Indians are their teachers and missionaries, many of whom have given a lifetime of unrewarded labour to promote their welfare at great personal and domestic sacrifice and whose splendid service the country is beginning to recognize. Their real friends are those white men who seek to help them and to encourage them when and where possible and who discourage all agitation and agitators and, may I further add, that in my opinion, the Indians of British Columbia, or indeed of any and every part of Canada, have no more disinterested and sympathetic advocate, no truer friend anywhere than the

Deputy Superintendent General, Mr. D. C. Scott.
Mr. Speaker, having listened carefully to the case as presented by Mr. O'Meara, on behalf of the allied tribes of British Columbia and having given the whole subject and his argument such study and consideration as I am capable of doing, and having in mind the fact that the land question was their main reason why this Bill should not pass, (they not having presented or urged any objection against the provisions of the Bill itself), I am fully convinced that his objections are groundless and in the main hypothetical, and believing that it is highly desirable in the interests both of the Indian and of the white population of British Columbia, that this Bill should pass, I support it with full confidence that its administration will be marked by kindness, consideration and firmness.
The CHAIRM1AN: Shall clause 1 carry?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: What was the nature of the amendments made by the committee?


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Where compulsory education is provided the amendment suggested by the .committee states that the children shall only be compelled to attend such school as shall be the nearest available school of the kind required.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: KING: Will the minister state generally the nature of the amendments?


Arthur Meighen: I think it will be better to state them as each clause is dealt with.
Section I agreed to.
On section 3-Enfranchisement of Indians.
On subsection (1)-Enquiry and report as to fitness of Indians to be enfranchised.


Mr. BOYS:: Mr. Chairman, with regard
to the amendment in clause 1 that has been referred to, and which is to be found on page 2 of the Bill, it provides that in the case of compulsory attendance the child shall be sent to the nearest available school of the kind required. In other words, it was thought that the child might be taken, for instance, from one province to another, and the amendment was made to guard against that.
Are we to take up section 3, Mr. Chairman?


Georges Henri Boivin: We are on section 3. Sections 1 and 2 were carried.


William Alves Boys: There is a more or less important amendment in section 107. As it read before it was as follows:
The Superintendent General may appoint an officer or person to make inquiry and report as to the fitness of any Indian or Indians to be enfranchised.
The amendment suggested by the committee is to strike out the words "an officer or person" in the second line and insert the following words-I will read the clause in its amended form:
The Superintendent General may appoint a board to consist of two officers of the Department of Indian Affairs and a member of the band to which the Indian or Indians belongs. The Indian member of the board shall be nominated in writing by the council of the band within thirty days after the date of notice having been given to the council and in default of such nomination the appointment shall be made by the Superintendent General.
It was thought that instead of leaving it entirely to the Superintendent General it would be better to have the board that the amendment provides for and on which the Indians will have representation. Then there is another amendment, merely in accord with that, in the last line of subsection 1, where the words "officer or person" are struck out and the word "board" inserted. Perhaps it would be better to deal with that before I make reference to the amendment which takes place in subsection 2.


Georges Henri Boivin: Shall subclause 1
carry?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Were the
amendments unanimously carried in committee?


William Alves Boys: That amendment was unanimously carried. It might be proper to state here that we had a division of opinion regarding compulsory enfranchisement. But I think I am correct in saying that every member of the committee agreed that if we are to have compulsory enfranchisement the method proposed therefor is a desirable one for accomplishing that purpose.


James Alexander Robb: Was any particular desire
expressed on the part of the Indians generally throughout the various provinces to become enfranchised, or were they opposed to it?


William Alves Boys: The majority of the Indians who appeared before the committee ,were not in favour of compulsory enfranchisement, mut so far as this particular method is concerned, I think I can say they were not opposed to it. We have to make that

distinction all the way through. I have already stated what the views were on the question itself, and if I am to confine myself to this section, I have nothing further to add; hut, on the other hand, if we are to discuss the general question of enfranchisement that opens up a wider field.


James Alexander Robb: On what grounds did the
Indians object to enfranchisement?


William Alves Boys: They want to please themselves. What moved the committee to adopt this amendment was the experience of the department. A matter perhaps worth referring to is that, Under the Indian Act, after fifty-three years of operation, only 65 Indians were enfranchised. Under the amendment made by chapter 26 of the Statutes of 1918, where there was a wider opportunity for enfranchisement, no less than 258 Indians took advantage of those provisions in less than two years, and it is felt that many more will do so under the provisions of the amended Act. Personally I see no reason why Indians who leave the reserve and work in the shops of Montreal, Brantford or other cities should have the protection to which an Indian is entitled under the Act, because these Indians are in receipt of large sums of money; many of them are professional men, doctors and lawyers, and should not be treated as wards. There is no thought on the part of the department, so far as we can gather from its past practice or from what the Deputy Superintendent stated before the committee, to bring about the enfranchisement of Indians in any wholesale way. If hon. members will read the provisions of the Bill and see the protection that surrounds the Indian in that regard, and if they will take the trouble also to read the proceedings before the committee and find out what the practice of the department has been, they will come to the conclusion that there is no thought on the part of the department of enfranchising any Indian who is not fit to be enfranchised. It is no wonder that the Indians did not take advantage of enfranchisement under the old method. Section 108 of the Indian Act, 1914, provides that whenever any male Indian or unmarried Indian woman of the 'full age of twenty-one years makes application to the Superintendent General for enfranchisement, the Superintendent General shall instruct the agent of the band of which the applicant is a member to call upon the latter to furnish a certificate. That is the first thing that has to be done; and that certificate 
has to be furnished under oath taken before a judge, justice of the peace, stipendiary magistrate, etc. It has to be shown that for at least five years previously the Indian has been of good moral character, temperate in his habits, intelligent, and so on. Then under section 109, upon receipt of that certificate thirty days have to lapse, during which time affidavits may be handed in with regard to the fitness or the character of the Indian in question. In the event of there being no such affidavits the Superintendent General under section 110, after examining the evidence may, if he decides in favour of the applicant, grant him * a location ticket for land occupied by him. Then, under section 112 three years are to elapse before the Indian is entitled to enfranchisement. Now, these proceedings seem to be slow and cumbersome. The amendments proposed by the committee provide that after the report is made under subsection 2 by the board referred to, the next step is as follows:
On the report ot the Superintendent General that any Indian, male or female, over the age of twenty-one years is fit for enfranchisement, the Governor in Council may by order direct that such Indian shall be and become enfranchised at the expiration of two years from the date of such order, or on the date of such order if requested by such Indian, and from the date of such enfranchisement the provisions of the Indian Act and of any other Act or law making any distinction between the legal rights, privileges, disabilities and liabilities of Indians and those of His Majesty's other subjects, shall cease to apply to such Indian or to his or her minor unmarried children, or, in the case of a married male Indian, to the wife of such Indian, and every such Indian and child and wife shall thereafter have possess and enjoy all the legal powers, rights and privileges of His Majesty's other subjects, and shall no longer he deemed to be Indians within the meaning of any laws relating to Indians.
Briefly summarized, this provision simply means that in the case of an Indian who is fit for enfranchisement the board investigates the case and, the report being favourable, the Superintendent General issues the order and at the end of two years the Indian becomes enfranchised. But if he himself wishes, he may become enfranchised at any time before the expiration of the two years. If, of course, this provision was going to lead to the wholesale enfranchisement of Indians against their wishes, a great deal might be said against it; but there is no such intenion. Under another section the desire of the Indian himself in regard to enfranchisement is to be a factor in determining his fitness. So that we start off with the report; that report shows

whether or not the Indian himself wants enfranchisement. It shows whether he is fit, in the opinion of the board to become enfranchised. If he is and does not himself desire to be enfranchised immediately, the order has no effect for a period of two years, during which time the Indian may make such representations to the depart-partment as he thinks proper. Our report recommended that the Government consider the advisability of amending the rules of the House so as to provide for a standing Committee on Indian Affairs. If that recommendation is approved and such a committee is established, the complaint of any Indian could go to that committee; and even if the rules are not so amended the matter can certainly be dealt with in a proper and fitting manner. So that it is safe to say that no Indian will be enfranchised against his wishes unless he is clearly fit for enfranchisement. And as I have said, why should Indians who work in the snops of Montreal, Brantford and other such places and who are in receipt of an income of from $6 to $9 a day, have all the protection surrounding wards of the country? These people are taking their places with the other residents of Canada; they are in just the same position as white men. Every Indian who came before the committee expressed a desire to take his place with the white man as fast as possible; no good argument was advanced against the compulsory enfranchisement of Indians who are in the position that I have indicated. Units? it can be shown from the record of the department or from something that w?s brought before the committee that it is the intention of the department to enfranchise, against their wishes, Indians who are unfit for enfranchisement, I cannot see what objection there can be to this proposal.


Arthur Meighen: I desire to move that the words " or on the date of such order *' in the portion sought to be added by the subcommittee be changed to "or earlier." As it reads, I am afraid that enfranchisement could take place either at the end of two years from the date of the order, or at the actual date of the order, and at no other time. That was not the intention, and, of course, it would not be common-sense. The intention is not to compel enfranchisement for two years, but if the Indian desires it earlier, at any time between the date of the order and the end of the year period, he can have it.


William Alves Boys: I think the minister is mistaken as to the meaning of the clause. The
order which enfranchises the Indian is made immediately after the report is made. The order is not dated two years hence; it is dated as of that date. The wording we have is: 'or on the date of such order if requested by such Indian." Now, suppose the order is made providing for enfranchisement two years hence. The Indian himself, before the two years are up, makes a request to be enfranchised, and if he does that, his enfranchisement takes place as of the date of the order, which would be a day gone by and not a day in the future. If there is to be a change, the only change that should be made is in the date of his application or request.


Arthur Meighen: My point is this. I did not have time to discuss the matter with the hon. member who was chairman of the committee, but I discussed it with the Deputy Superintendent General and with another member of the committee. If the clause is left as it is, then the order that the Governor in Council passes after a report of the Board, could provide for one of two things: one, that the enfranchisement of the Indian would take effect in two years from the date of the order; or two, that the enfranchisement of the Indian would take effect at once upon the date of the order, the second, only in the event of the Indian'requesting it. If the Indian can request it to take place, there is no reason why he should not be allowed to request it at any time within the two years.


William Alves Boys: That is the intention.


Arthur Meighen: That is what I thought. That is what I rose to say and what I said before. There is no use making it take effect within the two years and then to have the enfranchisement date back. That would retroactively make the Indian liable on obligations for which he was not liable before and which took place in the period between that date and the date of enfranchisement. That is why I make this suggested change which I was sure was the intention of the committee.


Mr. McCOIG:: In what way does the enfranchisement of an Indian affect him as regards his Government grant?


Arthur Meighen: On enfranchisement he gets commutation of all his rights, lie gets such lands or slich cash as his share amounts to, and then he makes his way in the world. He gets no more grants; he gets no more protection from his civil liabilities, and he gets the

vote. In a word, he becomes no longer an Indian, but a citizen in full status.


James Alexander Robb: My understanding of the matter is this. Subclause (2) of section 107 reads:
On the report of the Superintendent General that any Indian, male or female, over the age of twenty-one years is fit for enfranchisement, the Governor in Council may by order enfranchise such Indian, and from the date of such order the provisions of the Indian Act and of any other Act or law making any distinction between the legal rights, privileges, disabilities and liabilities of Indians and those of His Majesty's other subjects, shall cease to apply to such Indian or to his or her minor unmarried children, or in the case of a married male Indian, to the wife of such Indian, and every such Indian and child and wife shall thereafter have, possess and enjoy all the legal powers, rights and privileges of His Majesty's other subjects, and shall no longer be deemed to be Indians within the meaning of any laws relating to Indians.
As I understand this, it gives the Government of the day power to compel an Indian to become enfranchised.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman read the clause as it was originally drafted and submitted to the subcommittee, but the subcommittee has materially amended that clause.
Mr. EOBB But the minister just a few moments ago answering the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) said that no amendments were made in committee.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member must have misunderstood me, because I did not say that. I said that there was no amendment to clause 1, and then I corrected myself as to that, because there is a slight amendment to clause 1. But there is a very substantial amendment to this clause providing safeguards in the matter of enfranchisement. I will send a copy -to the hon. member.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is it not a fact that all the rights of Indians as respects property, enfranchisement and other such matters are secured under treaty obligations, and if so, have the Government considered the possibility of these treaty rights being superior to any Act of Parliament and any Order in Council?


Arthur Meighen: That has been fully considered. There are no treaty rights affecting the question of enfranchisement. The treaty rights affect property, but no clause of any treaty is interfered with in any degree by these clauses. Indeed, if it were, all the clauses would be similarly against the Treaty. This is mainly another

method of enfranchisement, and there is nothjng in any treaty that affects this at all. '


James Alexander Robb: According to this amended clause which the minister has kindly sent over, in the first place the department decide that they are going to have these Indians enfranchised, then they notify the council to make a nomination, and within thirty days after notice having been given to the council, in default otf the council having appointed a board, the Superintendent General himself may appoint this board. Therefore, the matter is all within the power of the department if they wish to go about it, if the Indians say: We are not going to bother with that.


Arthur Meighen: That refers to the appointment of the 'Indian member of the board.	,


James Alexander Robb: But, listening as I did at some of the sessions of the committee and knowing as I think I know the feeling of one band, that is the band in the county which I have the honour to represent, the St. Eegis band, the Indian is absolutely opposed to this measure with the exception of the educational features of it. He is opposed to enfranchisement. He remembers when he did have a right to vote in the past, and he says: If you give us this, it allows the white man to come in at times and debauch the tribe. The Indian has nothing to gain by this and he does not want it. He says: We have treaties with the white men and we expect the white man to live up to those treaties. I am afraid we are to-day introducing a measure that will enable a Government, perhaps not to-djay, but some day, to break faith with the Indian and to adopt measures that will not only take away from him his status as an Indian, but enable speculators to come in and take away his land. I imagine that is what the Indian is more afraid of than the question of enfranchisement.


William Alves Boys: This would affect only the enfranchised Indians, it would not affect any other Indians of the band. Does my hon. friend think, in the case he mentions, where these very Indians cross the St. Lawrence river and work in the shops of Montreal-


James Alexander Robb: The Indians to whom I refer are near Cornwall.


William Alves Boys: Well, I was thinking of the Indians of Caughnawaga. Is it proper for

an Indian to do what I have mentioned and make his seven or eight dollars a day and then go back to the tribe and da anything he likes and not be liable for his debts? I do not think for one moment this is a question of voting at all. A white man may be mentally weak, perhaps not half as strong mentally or physically as the In. dian of whom I have spoken, but the moment he becomes twenty-one years of age, he is liable for his debts. Yet under the law of to-day, that Indian goes about with all sorts of protection around him, and at the same time he ie competing with the white man and enjoying the benefits to which I have referred. It is not the intention of the department, it has not been in the past, and it will not be in the future, to enfranchise any Indian who is not fit; and if he is fit, if he can take care of himself, if he can do what I have mentioned, why should he not be enfranchised and become a full-fledged citizen? He need not vote unless he likes. Speaking as a member of that committee, I may say that the voting feature had not the slightest influence upon me. The policy of the department is not favourable to keeping an Indian a ward of the Crown; it is to try to develop his condition along educational and other lines in order that the day may come when he will become a full-fledged citizen of the country, taking with the white man the very part that he himself desires to take. If we do not move along these lines, how can that end be attained?


James Alexander Robb: The hon. member has mentioned the Caughnawaga Indians. Did their representative approve of fihis legislation?


William Alves Boys: I have said frankly that I do not think more than one or two of all who addressed the committee or were examined by them were in favour of this legislation. The stand they took was that if they wanted enfranchisement they could apply for it. The difficulty is that some of those who should be enfranchised and perhaps be made liable to the laws of the land are the very ones who will not apply for enfranchisement. Why should they be protected:


Mr. BURNHAM:: I should like to say a word on this matter as I have Indians in my constituency. An Indian who desires to become enfranchised should certainly have that privilege. This legislation does not in any way compel the enfranchisement of the band ot any of its' individuals who do not wish to become enfranchised, nor does it affect in any way the prosperity of
the reserve. Neither, of course, will it affect the money which they got under the treaty with the Government for the various properties which they have in times past sold to the Government, and for which they receive a stated annual amount. The Indians in the band in the county of West Peterborough are very intelligent, very progressive, and have a great deal of property. They want to have the vote. It is no good for my hon. friend (Mr. Robb) shaking his head, because they have told me they want the vote and their squaws want the vote. This tribe of Indians I speak of sent a very large number to the war, several of whom were killed and many decorated. Man for man they were more distinguished and more capable than the whites.


Mr. McKENZIE:: Not at all.


John Hampden Burnham: And to say that these men shall not under any circumstances have the right to the franchise, which, as I undti-stand thus legislation, is not in any ,vay to be forced upon them, is to my mind a great ingratitude and an impropriety that requires a whole lot of explaining.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before the amendment carries I think it is only proper that the views of the Indians who object to this legislation should be placed before the committee and be placed on record in Hansard. I have had handed to me a statement by some gentlemen who are representing the Indians, setting out the objections they have to this legislation, and with the permission of the committee I should like to read it, as I think it is important that we should not proceed with the legislation without having before us the objections to it from the point of view of the Indians. They are the parties that are concerned, and certainly if there is any obligation upon Parliament it is that we should safeguard the rights of a class of people who are particularly under the protection of the Government of the country. The memorandum that I have Ihlad given to me reads as follows:
As the Special Committee considering Bill 14 has now reported to the House of Commons, we think it well that all members of Parliament should know our reasons for objecting to this Bill. For this purpose we set out the following parts of our statement placed before the Special Committee.
"To the Special Committee of the House of of Commons.
Considering Bill 14.
"We delegates of the Allied Tribes of British Columbia protest against the proposed com-


William Alves Boys: I did not say that the Indians were all against it. I said that nearly all those who appeared before us were opposed, and that is a very different thing.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I apologize
to my hon. friend if I misconstrued his remarks, but his statement now speaks for itself, that nearly all the Indians that appeared before the committee were opposed to the legislation. If the Government were anxious to get this legislation through there is not a shadow of doubt that they must have made an effort to have some Indians present who would like to see the legislation passed; and if most of those that appeared proved to be against it, that fact would, prima facie, at least, seem to indicate that the Indians generally were opposed to it. Tf that is the case I think that
iis Parliament ought also to be opposed o this legislation; because Parliament is ;ertainly the guardian of the Indian's welfare.


Arthur Meighen: i will leave some one else to reply to my hon. friend, but I desire to say that the Government did not make any attempt to bring Indians down who were in favour of this legislation. Certain ones volunteered to come and they were helped to come, but we never made any attempt to bring down Indians who were in favour of it. Naturally those that came down would be those who were against the legislation; the rest of them trust the department.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should have thought that the Government, before legislating in a matter that affeots the fundamental rights of the Indians, would have made an effort to have a thoroughly representative group of Indians present and have them heard before taking any action. If the Government has made no effort to have representative Indians heard in the matter this legislation ought to stand until the Government oan obtain their views.


Arthur Meighen: The department, through a long series of five decades, has known the views of the Indians, and it is in touch with them from day to day. If one were to deal With wards in the same way as he would deal with citizens, he would not be dealing with wards at all. You could not put the two classes in that relationship if you dealt with them from the same stand-257
point. I shall not deal generally with the document which the hon. member has read; . I think there are other members of the committee who are better acquainted with its contents and its author than I am.
|Mr. HAROLD: I desire to make a few remarks in reference to the statements contained in the paper just submittted by the leader of the Opposition. Those objections were carefully considered by the committee, and the gentleman who wrote the document was given many hours to debate his case. A considerable body of Indians from British Columbia accompanied him and we gave them every opportunity to lay before the committee all the ideas they entertained in connection with this legislation or anything else that appertains to Indian affairs. I might say that at the outset of this inquiry I felt opposed to the principles underlying the compulsory enfranchisement as outlined in the Bill, and it was only after having heard all sides of the case that I became firmly convinced that it was absolutely necessary in the best interests of the Indians themselves that Parliament should take this opportunity to initiate the final step in the solution of the Indian problem. We must bear
4 p.m. in mind that there are three steps which are indispensable in connection with this problem. First, in his aboriginal state, the Indian needs protection; the next step is education and training; and the final step must be his absorption into the citizenship of the country. For some time past it has been felt to be in the interests of both the Indians and the country generally that legislation should be put on the Statute Book making this last desideratum an accomplished fact. A great deal of evidence was laid before the committee showing that the Indians themselves were suffering by reason of the fact that the laws of the country did not give the department the initiative to prepare the way for individual Indians as well as many bands being incorporated into the citizenship of the country. It was the apprehension on the part of the Indians that the department, if they had the power, would use arbitrary measures to take away from them certain rights that caused this opposition, and I am convinced that when the Indians themselves see this enactment in force they will be the ones who will most heartily approve of it and will be averse to its repeal. There were a number of Indians from various reserves who came before the committee all of their own accord and gave


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Archibald Blake McCoig: I wish to say that the statement which has been read by the leader of the Opposition to a very large extent accurately reflects the feeling of the Indians in the county which I have the honour to represent. The hon. member (Mr. Harold) who has just taken his seat, says that the enfranchisement of the Indians will not be compulsory, that the Government do not propose taking any such step. Very well, why not have the Bill worded 'to that effect? The hon. member, when he took it upon himself to read the statement of Chief Tobias, might have gone further and said that Chief Tobias was the only member of the band from Walpole island who favoured the Bill. Furthermore, notwithstanding the minister's statement, that no influence was brought to bear upon the Indians, I affirm that Indian agents were out canvassing the Indians at different points, and induced quite a number of them to volunteer to come down to support the Bill. However, when they did come down and got in touch with their associates and found out the real nature of the Bill they all reversed their attitude. They changed their views notwithstanding the fact that agents of the department had been in the vicinity for some days persuading them that the proposed Bill was all right. I 'therefore think the hon. member for Brant would have done better had he read the views of other Indians who made statements before the committee. That would have made the committee better acquainted with the nature of the legislation and enabled them to vote more intelligently upon it.


Frank Bainard Stacey: What names are attached to the document read by the leader of the Opposition?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There were no names attached to it. Mr. Teit, I think, was
one of the gentlemen who left the document; I do not know who the others were. It was given to me, as leader of the Opposition, as a statement to present to the House on behalf of the Indians.


Arthur Meighen: I recognize the style.


Frank Bainard Stacey: I deem it my duty to inform the hon. member that the Indians from British Columbia had gone home, and I fear the document he read was prepared by their counsel who remained. I fear that is the reason it is in the hands of the leader of the Opposition. The men who came from British Columbia were not brought here for the purpose of giving any evidence either for or against the Bill as such, as I tried to show a few moments ago. They were brought by the gentleman to whom I referred for a distinct and separate purpose by which he sought to undermine the whole principle of the Bill and the action of Parliament with reference to it. So I fear the effect of the petition which the leader of the Opposition read is very largely, if not entirely, nullified when it is borne in mind that the Indians themselves had gone home.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let me say
that I have not the slightest doubt that the statement was prepared by the counsel of the Indians. My purpose in reading it was to let the facts speak for themselves. The petition speaks for itself, and if there is nothing in the argument that is raised, of course it falls to the ground. I thought it was only proper to present what the counsel of the Indians objecting to this legislation wished to have said on their behalf.


Frank Bainard Stacey: The committee had all
that presented to them in detail, and elaborated by the counsel, but not by the Indians.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Surely the hon. member does not think the Indians have had the training and qualifications to prepare a statement like that. Is it not a proper thing for them to engage counsel to prepare a statement for them?


Frank Bainard Stacey: Let me tell the hon. member that there was an Indian youth in the committee who could take his place as counsel with any man who was there.


James Alexander Robb: Hear, hear, and he was opposed to the legislation.


Frank Bainard Stacey: No, sir, but he had not
been retained by the gentlemen concerned. He was an ordinary youth and I, as a citizen of British Columbia, wish he could have the opportunity to secure a legal

training. If he had, I do not hesitate to say, he would put a far better case for the Indians than the man they did engage.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: He was not all Indian, I venture to say.


Mr. PECK:: I wish to support what my hon. friend from Fraser Valley (Mr. Stacey) has said- I have no criticism whatever to oiler of the leader of the Opposition for trying to obtain the widest information, but what I claim is that the representations that have been made do not express the true feeling of the Indians of British Columbia. People who come here and make that claim should have some sort of genuine credentials. I am prepared, as a member who represents over 6,000 Indians, to say that the few who make such a claim do not represent the Indians generally-those in my part of the country at least. I have every sympathy with the purpose of the Bill, and, I congratulate the minister and the deputy superintendent general on their efforts. This is the first time in the history of the British Empire that people have struggled against enfranchisement-against obtaining liberty. We white men know what a long hard struggle preceded the granting of the franchise in this country to ourselves and no man ever made a nobler fight for liberty in this very Canada of ours than did the ancestor of my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition. It is (extraordinary for these people to say that they do not want liberty, and it seems to me that they do not represent the real Indian feeling of the country.


Mr. CAHILL:: What is the real Indian feeling?


Cyrus Wesley Peck: I think they are in favour
of enfranchisement.


Frank S. Cahill: You think so? The Indians do not say so.


Cyrus Wesley Peck: I do not give credence to Mr. O'Meara's statement that the Indians are opposed to enfranchisement. He is an agitator who goes up and down the country specially among the Nishgas, bleeding the Indians of their money so that he may come down here and make " representations " on their behalf. I say that he does not represent the feeling of the great tribes of British Columbia.


Frank S. Cahill: What do the great tribes themselves say?


Cyrus Wesley Peck: I say we have not got a
true expression of their feeling. I deny that this petition represents the true feel-

ing of the Indians in my constituency, among whom are some of the most enlightened and most advanced Indians in the Dominion. We wish to give them a chance to obtain the same full measure of liberty that we ourselves enjoy. By a peculiar coincidence, before leaving for Ottawa I had an interview with the Anglican Archibishop of Caledonia and the northern part of British Columbia, and with the Roman Catholic Bishop of Prince Rupert and the Yukon, and also with a number of other celebrated missionaries, and there was not one of them that did not wish to see the Indians have the franchise provided they could pass satisfactory tests,-that they understood our system of governmen't and our institutions.
Personally I think the Bill is a good one and does great credit to the minister and thos^ associated with him. If you want to refuse the franchise to a people, of course, you can do so, but it will be the most unique spectacle in the history of the world, for we are trying to enfranchise a people who, it is said, do not want to be enfranchised.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would not like my attitude or that of other hon. members on this side of the House to be misunderstood. We are not objecting in the least to permitting Indians to be enfranchised, if they wish to be enfranchised. The broader you can make the bounds of freedom for mankind the better in every way. What we are objecting to is a policy of icoeroion-compelling men to be enfranchised against their will. And in all these matters of human relations I hope that we on this side of the House will always object to coercion or autocratic action on the part of government. So far as making it permissive for men to become free in the larger sense, the Government cannot go too far; but they must leave it to the individual to say whether he will have this liberty. Do not compel him to take a course that he does not wish to take.


Arthur Meighen: There is not a day
passes that the hon. gentleman does not speak and vote to compel people to do what they do not want to do.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No.


Arthur Meighen: Under our law we compel people to pay their debts; but debtors do not ask for that law. There are Indians practising law, and no man can make them pay their obligations; and yet the hon. gentleman says that it is against the great principles of human liberty to com-

pel those men to pay their obligations unless they apply lor such legislation. There is a judge of the Superior Court of the province of Quebec who is exempt from all the laws binding the rest of us in regard to our civil rights and duties. But the hon. gentleman says, "That is all right. I would never touch him unless he wants to be bound, because to do so would be to interfere with the sacred cause of human liberty." Does he not see that he is off the tract altogether? There are Indians in scores-I know them myself for they have been down here-and if the hon. gentleman had been before the committee he would realize that they demonstrated to the full that they were citizens of Canada, and should be made so in law. He would acknowledge that by their status, their education and their activities they were in a position where they could not possibly claim any special immunities, because they were at the same time enjoying all the advantages of citizenship. No matter what the circumstances may he, no matter how educated the Indian may be, no matter what he may be worth, no matter what rank he may hold in society nor what position he may occupy in business, apparently it is perfectly proper that he enjoy all those advantages and at the same time he absolved from paying his debts; and yet my hon. friend exclaims that it is interference with the great principle of human liberty to remove from the Indian that exemption when he enjoys those liberties and those advantages.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the hon. gentleman wishes to deal with the subject of debt, he ought to bring in a Bill for that specific purpose, and I will support him.


Arthur Meighen: This is the only way. We can only make an Indian liable for debt by enfranchising him. 'So the hon. member had better support this Bill.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is that the whole purpose of the Bill?


Frank S. Cahill: Which of the hon. gentlemen opposite are we to follow,-the member looking after this Bill who wants to make the Indian pay his debts, or the member for Skeena who wants to put the Indian on the higher plane of citizenship?


Arthur Meighen: Both.


Frank S. Cahill: Which of the angels are we to follow, the angel of good or the angel of evil?


Cyrus Wesley Peck: All the "higher" citizens pay their debts.
Mr.CAHILL:The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Peek) states that the Archbishop of the Anglican Church and the Bishop of the Roman Catholic Church in his constituency advocate the principle of this Bill. That is all right, but neither of them is an Indian. What does the Indian say about it? The Indian has a solemn treaty with this country, and we propose to break that treaty by force. The Indians do not ask us for enfranchisement; but we say they must have it. One hon. member says, "We are endorsing this Bill because we want to give the Indian liberty." The minister who is in charge of the Bill says, "We want to get after the Indians and make them pay their debts, we want to coerce them, we want to put them off their Indian reserves and take their land.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then there is a resolution which is dated from Garden River, Ontario. It is in this form:
Gakden Rivek, Ont.,
March 29, 1920.
To His Excellency,
The Duke of Devonshire,
Governor General of Canada,
Ottawa, Canada.
Sir, We heg 'leave to lay 'before Your Excellency the following resolution which was passed by the Ojibway triJbe of Indians residing at Garden River, Ontario, convened at their council house, March 27, 1920:
Resolved, that this hand of Ojibway tribe of Indians residing at Garden River Indian reservation, Ontario, do hereby place themselves on record as opposed to the enactment of the Indian Enfranchisement lAct as contained in Bill No. 14, section one hundred and seven to one hundred1 and1 eleven, both inclusive, now before the present session of the House of Commons, because we firmly ibelieve that it will not be conducive to the best interests of the Indians of Canada to have such a law at the present time, and condemn the action of the Government in placing this very important question, which concerns the very life of the Indian reserves, races, rights and privileges, before Parliament without the consent of the Indians in general.
We most earnestly appeal to your humanity, honour and duty to carefully consider our position at this time, and we hope and pray that Your Excellency will not fail to maintain the principles mentioned above.
There is another communication also from Sault Ste. Marie, tout I need not trouble the committee with it at the moment.	[DOT]


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 5-powers of Council to make by-laws:
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: , I have not read this Bill, tout I understand that the Special Committee sat during nearly the whole of the session, and no doubt they heard a great volume of evidence. I understand that the Indian while he lives on the reserve has certain rights in certain properties. I would like to understand from the minister what happens to those property rights when he comes under the influence and operation of this legislation.


Arthur Meighen: If he has had a location he gets his own land and his share of the common fund. Then, if there is any residue of the common land of the band he gets his proper proportion of that. It is merely a matter of taking the fraction; no one has more rights than another in the common land. So he gets his share of that; nothing is taken from him. In a word, the very same principle of the apportionment of land and moneys applies as applied in the
[iMr. Mackenzie King.]
case of enfranchisements under the very dilatory clauses that were in the Act before. The principle of taking his share is just the same as before. I should say before I sit down that this committee and the House are certainly under a debt of gratitude to the Special Committee. I had no anticipation when the Special Committee was moved that the work would be so heavy. They had some seventeen sittings, many of them very lengthy, and the questions involved became more complex and difficult than I had expected. No praise can be too high of the earnestness and devotion with which the members of the committee applied themselves to their work.
Mr. McKENZIE.: I do not know who are the members of the committee, but I do know the chairman, and I know enough of him and of his work to be confident that everything was exhaustively inquired into. But he is in the position of the man who comes after the feast. Yesterday we had a feast of praise of the chairman of another committee for hie excellent work, and I suppose that is why we have been rather inclined to-day to forget to say something about the splendid work of the member for South Simone (Mr. Boys). If I have sufficient confidence in the Bill to allow it to pass, it is because it went through the hon. gentleman's hands. I do not want to say anything about Indians. All il would say about an Indian in Nova Scotia is that he is an Indian. I hope that they have better Indians in the West.


Cyrus Wesley Peck: In the event of an Indian leaving the reserve and becoming enfranchised, does he participate in any future benefits accruing to the reserve? For instance, in my county there is a reserve which is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. The question of the Indian's participation in whatever residue there might be is a very important one, because it may influence his desire for enfranchisement. The point is especially important in respect to British Columbia, where the Indian reserves are of great value.


Arthur Meighen: If they are of great value, of course the Indian gets at the time of his enfranchisement his share of the common value. If on account of the discovery of a mine or something of that sort the property later turns out to be of much greater value, I would not think the Indian would be entitled to a share. On the other hand, if there is a reaction in values and

the value of the property should go down, he would not suffer. He takes his chance on the value of the property going down or up. I really do not see how we could give him the benefit on the one hand when we have no means of making a subtraction on the other.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment.
Mr. SPEAKER:: When shall the Bill be read the third time?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Ordinarily I
would not object to the third reading at the present time, but the hon. member for Quebec East (IMr. Lapointe) has been very much interested in this legislation and may wish to speak on the third leading.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Next sitting of the House.


PENSION ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Arthur Meighen (Minister of the Interior) Bill No. 198, to amend the Pension Act, was read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair. '
On section 1-"appearance of the injury or disease":
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Am I correct in understanding that this Bill is based entirely upon the recommendations of the committee?


Mr. CALDER:: I -was not present at many meetings of the committee when the matter of pensions was under consideration, but I understand this Bill went before the Pension Committee, every clause was very carefully considered and the whole Bill is approved by the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 9-section 22 of the said Act is repealed.
Mr. POWER:: This is the clause that has been amended in the Militia Act?


Mr. CRONYN:: This is the same clause
that has already been amended to-day in the Militia Act and the Mounted Police Act allowing a long service pension and a pension for disability to be paid.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On clause 10-no pension to children over age limit.
Charles Gavan Power: At the last meeting at
which I was present, I was under the impression that in certain of these clauses-
I am not sure whether section 23 under clause 10 was one of them-the wording had to be changed, because it did not convey the exact meaning that the committee intended it to convey. Perhaps we are going through these clauses too rapidly.


Hume Cronyn: I should like, of course, to have specific cases brought to my attention, but my understanding is that in every case the wording was changed to comply with the decisions of the committee. Section agreed to.
On section 23-increase not exceeding $180 annually between dependent parents of deceased member.


Charles Gavan Power: Subclauses (5), (6), (7) and (8) of subsection 4 of section 34 under this clause should be discussed together. This is the old question of the widowed mother which has been frequently brought up and which I have brought up in this House every year that pensions have been discussed.
Subclause (5) "widowed mother or dependent parents," makes these cases subject to review. That is to say, if a widowed mother is obtaining a pension at any time, the Board of Pension Commissioners may send a visitor, a representative of the board, to visit this widowed mother with regard to her income and the number of children she has who can contribute to her support, and this visitor can go into her financial and domestic affairs generally. A large number of complaints have, on different occasions, been brought before the House with regard to this.
Subclause (6) states that if a widowed mother has an unmarried son living with her, this unmarried son will be deemed, in the discretion of the Board of Pension Commissioners, to contribute to her support ten dollars per month, this ten dollars to be deducted from the amount of pension which would otherwise be allowed her. There are serious objections to this, the particular one being in regard to leaving to the discretion of the commission what amount earned by this son is considered sufficient by the commission. The other serious objection to which I will refer later is that I do not think the mother should be taxed in any way whatever oh account of the fact that she has an unmarried son.
Subclause (7) states:
The pension to a widowed mother shall not be reduced on account or tier earnings from personal employment or on account of her hav-

ing free lodgings or so long as she resides in Canada on account of her having an income from other sources which does not exceed $240 per annum.
My objection is to the $240 per annum. 1 contend that she should have no deduction made from her pension on account of any income which she has from any source whatsoever. The ordinary widow of a soldier who is killed receives a pension irrespective of whether or not he left an estate. Her husband, when he was killed, might have left an estate worth $1,000,000, but his widow would still obtain a pension. The soldier's widowed mother should have absolutely the same right as the wife. It has been pointed out time and time again in this House and in committees that in no other province than Quebec can the widowed mother or the destitute parent claim, under the law, an allowance from the child. I am sorry for the other provinces if they have not that law because I think that is the natural law. After all, a man has a mother before he has a wife, and you can get rid of a wife- we have seen them got rid of time after time in this House in two minutesi-but you cannot get rid of a mother. A man's first duty is to his mother, and if the State wishes to do anything along the lines of placing the parents and dependents of the soldier in the position in which they would have been had the soldier returned safe and sound, the mother of the soldier should ibe looked after just as much as his widow. That is my contention. I have contended for that during the three years in which I have been a member of this House, and shall continue to do so until I am no longer a member. The next clause provides that:
The pension to a parent or person in place of a parent shall not be reduced on account of the payment to such parent or person of municipal insurance on the life of a deceased member of the forces.
A large number of cities throughout the Dominion early in the war1 decided to insure the lives of soldiers from the city up to a certain amount, varying from $500 to $1,500. A special provision has been made in this Bill not to deduct from the widowed mother anything she may receive from municipal insurance on her dead son. 1 would suggest that no insurance of any kind, municipal or otherwise, should affect the amount of pension. After all, the insurance which she received on account of her son was something that he worked and paid for. Surely you are not going to deduct from the pension, meagre enough as it

is, that a widowed mother receives on account of the death of her son any amount she may receive from insurance. I therefore beg to move that subparagraph (5) which provides that the pensions of parents shall be always subject to review shall be stricken out. It is the clause providing for the visits of these inspectors and visitors whom so manjr members of the House have found so obnoxious.
Mr. NICHOLSON (East Algoma) I wish to support the position taken by the hon. member (Mr. Power) on .this question of reviewing pensions granted to mothers or dependent parents, and on the whole question of interfering with the pension they may receive by reason of having some small additional income from some other source. When this subject was up before, I mentioned three specific cases that had come to my knowledge, and I am going to give them again now. One mother who lost her only two sons in the war has three daughters working out as domestics, and because it was found by some inspector sent out by the Pension Board that these daughters might perhaps contribute to their mother's support $5 or $6 or $10 a month, the mother's pension was reduced. In another case a dependent parent, a father 76 years of age, went out to work in the summer months to augment the small income he derived from the pension, and his pension was therefore entirely wiped out. In another case a friend found that a widowed mother was paying a fairly high rental for the house she was living in, and a gentleman out of the goodness of hie heart decided he would give the widow a free house to live in. When this was found out by the Pension 'Board, her pension was proportionately reduced. Surely the dependent parents and widowed mothers have suffered enough in the loss of their sons without having their income constantly reviewed with a view to reduction of the pension. I do not believe this country is small enough to want to do that, and I hope that before this Bill passes the minister in charge will accept the amendment of my hon. friend (Mr. Power) to strike out these provisions altogether. I can think of nothing more nauseating to the widowed mother of a fallen soldier than to have these inspectors coming around to see whether the small amount of pension on which they can barely live is being augmented in any way. Let us give them the pension and say nothing more with regard to it.


Mr. TURGEON:: I have much pleasure in supporting the amendment of my hon.

friend (Mr. Power) on behalf of the widowed mothers of our fallen soldiers. I have already expressed myself on this question before, and I had hoped the committee would bring in recommendations accordingly. I hope the minister will strike out subparagraph (5).


Mr. CHON  YIN@: I find myself in a somewhat peculiar position because on former occasions in this House I have advocated a change in the law respecting widowed mothers. The law as it existed up to to-day did to my mind, discriminate against this particular class of pensioner. The question was very fully discussed and considered by the committee, and the hon. member (Mr. Power) put forward his arguments in his usual forcible way, but in the end the committee decided that the provisions which appear in this Bill went as far as they felt they should go. We must remember that there is a very great difference drawn in the pension law between the case of a widow and a parent. A widow gets a pension absolutely regardless of any means she may have. Her position in life has nothing to doi with what she may receive. The law takes it that she is entitled, first, to the support of her husband when he was alive, and that by reason of his death she should not have any deduction in her income. But in the case of parents there is the distinction made that the parent first of all must be shown to have been dependent on the soldier. True it is that by a subsequent clause the cases of prospective dependency are provided for, but leaving that aside for the moment, the first provision of the law' is that the parent must be shown to have been dependent on the soldier. Next, it must be shown that the parent is in need, is not independent. 'If the parent be independent no pension is due, but if the parent be dependent the pension is payable. Under the law as it stands, it was necessary in order to award pensions to ascertain whether the parent was or was not dependent and, as has been stated, various accretions to income or the possession of a home, for instance, were treated as independent income and the amount was deducted from the pension. Under this Bill no deduction is made from a widowed mother's pension by reason of the fact that she owns a home, or on account of her earnings, and provided she resides in Canada that her income from other sources does not exceed $20 a month. That was the decision of the committee. It goes far
to ameliorate the situation that exists at the present time, and I think should be accepted.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough):: I am inclined to favour the
views of my hon. friend (Mr. Power). I do not think the pension of the widowed mother should be in as precarious a state as it appears to be. Many cases have occurred in my own experience where the inspector was. I considered, somewhat too harsh in his report. Of course, ,a great deal depends on the administration of the Act as well as the phraseology of it. but there are cases, I have no doubt, where the report of the inspector upon a visit has been too severe. I know of widowed mothers and fathers having been deprived of their small pension because the inspector took into consideration circumstances which really should have been ignored. I have had occasion to bring one or two cases of this kind to the attention of the commission, and when the facts were explained the pension was restored. The question is largely one of administration, and I think that a meddlesome inspector who wants to make himself important and show that he is doing his duty thoroughly may sometimes go to extremes. I knew of one instance in which an inspector visited a country house where two old people were living. The old man was almost blind. This couple had lost their two sons at the war, and the old lady was endeavouring with her husband to make a living as best she could. They had a small farm in a very isolated and poor district, away from neighbours. The inspector discovered that they had a few hens in the barn, a cow, and a dozen or so of apple trees, and these assets he calculated to represent a certain amount of support to these old people. He reported accordingly, .and the pension, which was only a small one, he recommended to be reduced because they had this farm. In reality, what they possessed was merely a shelter over their heads. These people could not raise anything on the farm at all for the obvious reason that they had no labour; and to hire labour in that part of the country and make anything out of that meagre property was an impossibility. So that the inspector ought to have ignored the circumstances and let this case alone. When the matter was brought to the notice of the board they rectified it. I am inclined to agree with my hon. friend from Quebec that some change ought to be made in the regulations.


Georges Henri Boivin: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Georges Henri Boivin: In my opinion the
nays have it. I declare the amendment lost.


William Stevens Fielding: I want to state a case which I think is covered by subsection 7. To make assurances doubly sure I want to put the position before the minister. A widow lost a son who had been living at home. She had other sons who were living far away and who had their own affairs to look after, so that although they were earning something she could not look to them for support. She was living with a relative and the pension which she would otherwise have received was reduced on the ground that she did not have rent to pay because this relative had kindly taken her in. I know that the commissioners did the best they could, but it was wrong to reduce the pension. I understand that such cases as this are covered by the amendment in subsection (7). Am I Tight?


Hume Cronyn: Yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Subsection (7) provides that the pension to a widowed mother shall not he reduced on account of her earnings from personal employment or on account of her having free lodgings, or so long as she resides in Canada. Let me put this case before the minister. A woman residing in Halifax lost her son in the war^peihaps two sons-and has a daughter who is married in Boston. The daughter invites her to go and live with her in Boston. Why should the pension of that widow be subject to some reduction because the woman happens to go to live with her own daughter in the United States instead of living alone?


Charles Gavan Power: I have an amendment to subsection (6). I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Turgeon)-


Georges Henri Boivin: Just a moment, Mr. Cronyn desires to reply to the hon. member.


Hume Cronyn: The committee have treated pensioners residing in Canad'a on a somewhat different basis from those residing in the United States or elsewhere. There is no doubt that in the case put by the hon. member (Mr. McKenzie), if the widowed mother moved to the United States and were in receipt of an independent in-
IMr. Sinclair.!
come that income would be deducted from the pension which she would otherwise be entitled to. So long as she stays in Canada, and has an income not beyond $20 a month no deduction is made. When she crosses the border there is a deduction. That distinction is made between those who reside in Canada and those in the United States, and one of the reasons is that in the United States-I think I am right in saying this-the widowed rhother gets no more than $30 a month. That is the limit of the allowance in that country, and it would be unfair to have Canadians going over there and receiving perhaps very much larger amounts, having .independent incomes as well.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Guysborough):: I do not think the United States has made any discrimination of that kind in regard to American pensioners living in Canada. I know of a great many people receiving pensions from service in the American war who have moved to Canada and are receiving their pensions just the same. If we are to reduce the pension of a widowed mother who goes to live with a relative in the United States, the United States might probably say, "We will do the same." Has that phase of the matter been considered?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not think that residence in the United States should interfere with the little pension we give. I should not say "little" it is rather a respectable pension as pensions go that we are now granting. But that pension is earned. The death of the son and the Act of Parliament together secure to the woman the pension and it is her property. It is guaranteed to her, and it belongs to her while she lives. Why should we make a condition that she cannot go across the border and live comfortably with relatives? Why should that interfere with the money she gets? Why not let her go to the United States or wherever she wants to go and enjoy the full benefit of the pension under whatever circumstances may appeal to her? I do not see why we should be following this woman to see whether she goes to the United States, or whether she goes to Newfoundland or anywhere else. There are in this country a lot of women belonging to Newfoundland whose sons died in the war. Such a woman, .in her old age, may go to Newfoundland, which is beyond the borders of Canada, and then under this section suffer some impairment of her pension. I do not think it is really worth while to make such a fine distinction as that.


James Alexander Calder: I understand one of the reasons why the committee thought it desirable to put in this provision was on account of the disparity between the pensions that we pay to widowed mothers and the pensions which are paid in the United States and Great Britain.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Do we pay more?


James Alexander Calder: We pay considerably
more.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Well, that is an advertisement for us.


James Alexander Calder: The result is that if we widen the breach, so to speak, between our pensions and the pensions paid by these countries we are making very considerable difficulty for them. That is particularly so in Great Britain because I understand that our pension scale for this class of persons is very much higher than it is there, and I think the committee has in mind the object of trying to avoid comparisons of that nature. I am told that there are about 4,000 widowed mothers altogether living either in the United States or Great Britain; I would think that the larger number, over 3,000, live in the latter country. I merely mention this because I understand it was one of the main reasons why the committee acted as it did.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not want to have a widowed mother restricted to living in this country, and to have her gloomily looking out of the window over the sea, and anxious to go back to the Old Land and live and die with her relatives there. At present she cannot go there because there is a restriction on her pension; if she goes she loses the money. That woman has had enough troubles in the death of her son, and other difficulties, without adding to her suffering. When you adopt such a restriction as this and say that she cannot go and spend the balance of her days wherever she pleases I think it is a pretty small affair. I think such a woman ought to be at perfect liberty to- go where she likes and enjoy her pension.


Mr. McMASTER:: Does she lose her pension in that case? Well, what really serious ground is there for such conduct on the part of the Government? Surely the minister is not serious when he tells us that such a course is to be followed after we have, in our wisdom, decided that the widowed mother should receive a certain pension, for the sake of saving the feelings of other nations whose financial obligations
or whose sentiments are not such as ours are, and who have not granted such a good pension to these widowed mothers; I cannot imagine that that is a serious argument. We have made up our minds that a widowed mother should receive a certain pension by reason of the loss of her son. Let us take this case, because I am sure it is one that will occur very often: A mother has come over to this -country with, say, a couple of boys with whom she was residing before the war. One of these boys went to the front and was killed. She has married daughters in Scotland with whom she wants to go back to live. -Is it seriously tol^ me that because of the transference of her domicile from Canada to Scotland that this woman's pension is to be cut down, if there is a striking difference between what the Canadian Government pays to this unfortunate woman and what the British Government is able to pay to her unfortunate sister? That woman is receiving her compensation for tearing up the ' roots of her life in the Old Land and coming out to a country where economic conditions -are better, and where the people are, or think they are, able to afford larger pensions. I cannot conceive the argument to be a serious one. I trust I would be the last man in this House to urge greater expenditure, hut I cannot think that the difference involved would amount to anything serious and I do not like the principle of this thing.


Mr. NESBITT:: A great many of the widows who were in the Old Country did not come out, as my hon. friend says, to this country and then go back to the Old Land. A great many of the sons of such people had come to this country and had assigned pay to their mothers in the Old Country. That was the case with respect to a great many of these widows over there. The main reason for not giving the same amount is that living in England and Scotland is so much cheaper than it is in Canada. The pension paid to widowed mothers is therefore equalized by this clause as nearly as it can be equalized. It is all right to talk about being generous but I think we have been very generous in the matters of pensions in this country from first to last, and we are very generous as far as the recommendations of the committee are concerned. This question was argued at great length before the committee and the decision was almost unanimous that the recommendation should take its present form.


William Stevens Fielding: I hesitate to express any dissent from the report of the comipit-tee when I know they have given long and patient consideration to each matter dealt with therein. Still !I am sure the Chairman and members of the committee will accept any suggestions that are offered in the right spirit. In Nova Scotia and New Brunswick-in fact in the (Maritime Provinces generally, and I suppose it is true of other provinces-there are a very large number of people who have relatives in the United States. At one time, many years ago-when means of communication between this section of Canada and the lower provinces practically did not exist- all travel went from the lower provinces to. the United States, and there are a large percentage of our population to-day who have relatives there. I have heard it said -I am not sure that it is not actually the case-that there are more Nova Scotians in the city of Boston than there are in the city of Halifax. Now if occasionally some widow who is receiving a pension under -this generous arrangement-and it is in the main a generous arrangement; I agree with my hon. friend from North Oxford (Mr, Nesbitt)-but if some widow finds it desirable for family reasons to go and live with her relative in the United States- she is not going to do that for any reason other than some good domestic reason, some reason that is going to minister to her comfort and happiness-if in such a case she sees fit to cross the border to live with her relative in the United States, upon my word I can see no reason why she should be penalized for doing so.
(Mr. C'ALDER: It is not the case of a few odd individuals. As I have pointed out, there are somewhere in the neighbourhood of between three and five thousand widowed mothers now in the United States or Great Britain. There are more in the United States and Great Britain than in Canada; there are more outside of Canada than in Canada. Now I understand from the officers that the changes already made in our pension law represent an annual expenditure of $2,400,000. That is the increase provided for by the changes now made in this section of the law.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: For widowed mothers?


Mr.   OALDBB@: Yes. Now, in the case of the widowed mother residing out of Canada, if she is not in receipt of an income it is not proposed to decrease her pension; she [CMj. Neobitt]
gets the full pension provided for. It is only in case she receives an income that is ascertainable that there is a deduction made under the provision of this section, providing she is living outside of Canada. Well now, I am told that if this section is altered and we strike out the phrase, "resides in Canada" it will mean a further addition to our expenditure of something in the neighbourhood of $720,000 a year. These are figures that must be considered by the committee when they come to decide as to what should be done. I do not say that we should by any means take into account the question of dollars and cents. We should endeavour to do what is the right thing, and that was the attitude of the committee throughout the whole inquiry. They kept the question of dollars and cents completely to one side and they came to the conclusion to do the right and proper thing to all parties concerned in the case of these pensions.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Like my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding), I feel that it is an ungracious thing to differ from the committee who spent so much time and devoted so much thought and attention to this matter. But is there not a middle way in connection with these pensions to widowed mothers? If they have never lived in this country, I think a good deal might be said that when the scale of living in their own country is less costly than here a lesser pension might with equity be given; and that if they are living and have always lived in another country, let us say the United States, then we would not feel the same obligation towards them as we would towards those who are living among us. Would it be possible to find a middle way and so amend the law that widowed mothers who had previously to the enlistment of their sons resided in Canada should not have their pensions cut down, but if they had never lived in Canada that what is contemplated by the legislation as at present before the House might be continued?


Charles Gavan Power: Another point of view is that in 1916, 1917 and 1918 the Dominion spent enormous sums, of money recruiting British-born soldiers in the United States. We went to the United States to1 get these men, and if their widowed mothers are living in that country, surely they should be placed on the same footing as widowed mothers in this country. At the time the Military Service Act was being put into

force we were sending to the United States to obtain recurits. Those men might have remained at home, for the provisions of the proposed treaty between the United States and Canada I do not think were ever put into force; hut if they had been those men certainly would not have been affected until such time as the United States entered the war, and they might not have been killed at the front. It strikes me that having promised to place those men on the same basis as our Canadian soldiers, it is our duty to see that their widowed mothers are treated in like manner.


Mr. EDWARDS:: In case that widowed
mother's son had not come from the United States and enlisted in the Canadian forces, but had enlisted in the United States Army and was killed, how would her pension from the American Government compare with the pension that we give her?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: About half.


Charles Gavan Power: I am not sure.


John Wesley Edwards: How does the pension that we give her compare with the pension that would be received by a widowed mother in England? My recollection is that our pension is nearly double that given to a widowed mother in England, and that it is about 25 or 30 per cent higher than the pension given in the United States. All that we are proposing in this clause is that if the widowed mothers have no other means they get the full pension, no matter whether they live in England, Scotland or in the United States; but if they have other means then a certain reduction is made, which I think will still leave the pensions they receive higher than those paid in the United States or in England.


Charles Gavan Power: I am willing to agree with the hon. gentleman from Frontenac that the United States pensions for widowed mothers are lower than ours, and I know the English pensions are much lower. But, after all, that boy was .a Canadian soldier; we went to the United States and asked him to join our army; and his mother having allowed him to go, is entitled to absolutely the same treatment as widowed mothers residing in this country. Because we can say, "Well, in the United States widowed mothers are not obtaining so much as they would in Canada," I do not think it is fair to deprive the widowed mother of a Canadian soldier of what is due to her. We have not got to follow the American example, nor the English. I think it is our duty to give these widowed mothers
absolutely the same pensions a.s we give to widowed mothers in Canada.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: Perhaps the section might stand for a little further consideration. I should hesitate to depart from the report of a committee which has given such very careful attention to all that could be said on this subject, and which has made this report with, as I understand, practical unanimity. On th j other hand, there is something to be said for the point of view advanced by my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding). I do not think that the suggestion put forward by the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMasteT) would be practicable. because we would have this condition of affairs: that widowed mothers going from Canada to live in Great Britain would be side by side with other widowed mothers receiving a less pension, and merely for the reason that they have never lived in this country. It is perfectly true, as my hon. friend from Quebec South (Mr. Power) has said, that we did invite recruitment in the United States. I think the recruiting took place among young Englishmen who had been living in the United States for a number of years, and many of whom desired to join the Canadian forces, and also among Canadians who had lived in that country for some years. My hon. friend is mistaken in supposing that the treaty between Canada and the United States did not go into effect. It was not made until after the United States entered the War, but it did become operative and was acted on in both countries. However, in view of the expressions of opinion which have been put forward, and which are deserving of consideration, it might be well to let this section stand for the moment.


Georges Henri Boivin: Sir Bobert Borden moves that section 23 be allowed to stand for further consideration.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: As far as following the recommendations of the committee is concerned, we reached page 6 of the Bill before any stop occurred, and I think that such excellent progress is a great compliment to the committee.


Mr. NICHOLSON (Algoma):: I wish to say a word on clause 23-


Georges Henri Boivin: A motion for a clause to stand is not debatable.
Section stands.
On clause 26-additional pension to dependents, etc.:


Charles Gavan Power: I want to point out another peculiar anomaly in the Act, which has never struck me before. We make up the difference in pensions to people living in our country who served in the military forces of Great Britain or of the Allied countries; for instance, the widow of an Allied soldier who' obtains a smaller pension than we give has her pension made up to our own scale, and yet when our widowed mothers live in another country we reduce their pensions. This discriminatory treatment seems to me most absurd. During the three years that I have been on the Pensions Committee this clause has been discussed time and again, but only at this moment has the point which I now emphasize come to my attention.


Andrew Ross McMaster: A domiciled Canadian
citizen who had lived here for some fourteen years before the war broke out was summoned to the French colours in August, 1914. He went overseas, joined the French army, was awarded the Croix de Guerre for gallantry, and returned after the war was over. If he had gone into the English army and the English pension granted him -for he lost part of both hands-was smaller than the Canadian pension, our Government would have made up the deficiency to him. Now, does this amendment cover such a case as that? Is the pension of such a man to be brought up to what it would have been had he enlisted in the Canadian army?


James Alexander Calder: I understand that this
question was up last year; in fact, I think the member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) brought the same instance to the attention of the House. I am told that the report of the Pensions Committee has made no chrnge in the .aw so far as cases of that kind are concerned.


Andrew Ross McMaster: If that man had been a British reservist and had been called to the British colours, he would have received the same pension as if he had enlisted in the Canadian army. But he joined the French colours, and he fought just as bravely as he would have fought if he had been in the British army; he suffered and bled for our cause the same as he would have done in the British army. I think it is very unfair that he should receive a smaller pension than his brother Britir'i reservist who jointed the British colours.


Mr. McGIBBON (Muskoka):: Was he a
Canadian citizen?
[The Chairman.]


Andrew Ross McMaster: Yes, and had been for some years prior to the war. He left a wife and six children on this side when he went overseas.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: If he had been a Canadian citizen and had joined the Imperial army he would have been entitled to equalization of pension. This clause is to provide for equalization of pension for the dependent, not for the man himself.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 30-commencement of Act:
Mr. COPP:: As the chairman of the committee will remember, I reserved the right when the report of the committee was being prepared to bring certain matters before this committee and to place myself on record with regard thereto. During the sittings of the committee I attended as frequently as I could. While the advisability of adopting a number of things was a matter of argument, the committee generally came to unanimous decision as to what we could do in the interests of the soldiers, having in mind the financial situation and the different matters that were presented to the committee for consideration. There are two or three things I would have liked to have seen in the report and in the Bill. One was discussed yesterday,-a proposal to grant loans to fishermen. Another provision I would like to have seen in the iBill is one which would increase from eighteen years to twenty-one years the age limit in respect of assistance in the matter of education. I think that any young man who enlisted before attaining the age of twenty years or should be given this aid with regard to his education as is general to those who enlisted prior to eighteen years of age. Of course, twenty-one years is an arbitrary age to determine upon, but it has been adopted by this country as the age at which manhood is attained, so that up to that age the soldier should -ibe considered as a boy. The majority of the committee were not with me in that regard.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: This is a matter which
comes under re-establishment, and will be dealt with later.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Well, I have put myself on record, anyway. I was also of the opinion that pensioners now residing in the United *States should be paid in New York funds. The amount involved would not be a very large one for the Dominion of 'Canada to assume. As the member for Quebec S'outh (Mr. Power) has said, a large number of

Canadians, British-born and Canadian-born, came from the United States to enlist in the Canadian forces. They had never taken the oath of allegiance to the Unted States; they remained Canadian citizens. They went overseas with the Canadian forces; ultimately they returned, and instead of throwing themselves upon the country as they might have done they went back to the United iStates and resumed their ordinary occupations.


John Wesley Edwards: Would my hon. friend pay soldiers who happened to be in England, Italy and France in the currency of those respective countries instead of in Canadian currency?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I am coming to that. Because of our currency being at a discount in the United States, pensioners who live in the United States and who receive their payments in Canadian money stand to lose to the extent of the discount. In the United Kingdom our currency is at a premium, so that if the matter was adjusted along these lines, Canada would not be paying any more, generally speaking, than she is paying now. The pensioner residing in the United States would get the same amount as the pensioner residing in Great Britain. The argument might be made that a pensioner residing in Great Britain is not in a foreign country. But the pensioner who resides in the United Kingdom is of no more benefit to Canada than the one who resides in the United States, and the premium on our currency in the one case would very largely offset the deficiency in the other. I did feel that the Pensions Committee should have given that advantage to the pensioner residing in the United States. I have had quite a number of telegrams and letters with regard to the matter. I feel that is something that the committee should have done, but the majority were of the other opinion. I think the Chairman will agree with me that I reserved the right to place my views before this committee, and I have done so in regard to the two or three items which I should like to have seen incorporated in the Bill.


John Wesley Edwards: If my hon. friend's suggestion were carried out, great difficulties might present themselves. Supposing a pensioner started on a pleasure trip around the world. Would my hon. friend have the pension follow him to Havana, Japan and every other country he saw fit to visit?


Charles Gavan Power: He could not get around
the world on his pension.


Arthur Bliss Copp: My hon. friend is asking me a question which seems to me too unreasonable to take up any more time of the committee in attempting to answer it. This matter was brought to the attention of the committee and a conclusion was reached, after many compromises had been made.
I may be wrong in regard to the matter, but I am only exercising my right, and I said in the committee that I would reserve the right to place my views before this committee. I have done so, and I feel it would have been the proper thing to have incorporated these provisions in the Bill. The majority of the committee, however, were opposed to this scheme, and I am prepared to bow to their decision,


John Wesley Edwards: I hope my hon. friend will not think for a moment that I am trying to imply that he had no right to present his views in this House. I certainly had no such thought. Arguments may be advanced in support of the view of my hon. friend in regard to this matter, and I was merely endeavouring to point out some of the difficulties in the way of carrying it out. It is not sufficient to argue that a pension should be paid in the United States in American currency, taking that one country alone, because if you accept that principle, you must follow the pensioner no matter to what country he goes. That is logical, and that presents a difficulty which seems to point very clearly to the fact that the committee came to a wise decision when they decided to pay the pensioner in Canadian money no matter to what country he might go.	.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I did not argue that there
were no difficulties in the way. Instated, as calmly and as considerately as I could, my views in regard to the matter. I have never, in connection with pensions or other benefits to returned men, argued that no difficulties presented themselves. As regards this scheme, I did not think the difficulties were insurmountable or I would not have brought it up. But difficulties have arisen and the majority of the committee have felt that they could not adopt this scheme. I have taken this opportunity of putting myself on record as otherwise it might have looked as if the committee had been unanimous on this point.


Mr. CALDWELL:: At the outset I took
the same view as that of my hon. friend (Mr. Copp); but when the committee came to consider the matter and the fact that

the rate of exchange is not stationary, that it fluctuates from week to week and from month to month, I came to the conclusion that it would be almost impossible to work out this scheme. Had the rate of exchange been permanent, it might have been possible to work out this scheme; but the rate of exchange not being permanent, it would be practically impossible for the Board of Pension Commissioners to follow the rate of exchange.


James Alexander Calder: The schedules have been very carefully checked but two slight amendments are necessary. I move to amend schedule A by correcting the first figures in the fourth line of the first schedule to make them read $637.50 instead of $637, and the last figures in the same line to make them read $31.88 instead of $21.88. Amendment agreed to.


Charles Gavan Power: In case these things are
not carefully checked, what effect will there be on the pensions? For instance, in schedule A under class 1, the first child gets $180, and the second child, $144 per annum; but when you come to class 13, both of them get the same, namely, $72 per annum.


Hume Cronyn: They get the same from
there on.


Charles Gavan Power: Yes. Is there any special reason for that?


Hume Cronyn: The explanation is that this follows the arrangement made under the present Act where, from an administrative point of view, so as to cut out fractions of dollars in making money payments, the deduction was not absolutely by strict percentage, but it was worked out so as to bring it to even money payments as far as possible.


Charles Gavan Power: That is, I understand, by regulation of the Board of Pension Commissioners?	v


Hume Cronyn: It was done at the request, no doubt, of the Board of Pension Commissioners in the last Act to enable the administration to work in that way, but it is, of course, fixed by the schedule. Schedule A agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Calder, the committee reverted to the consideration of clause 23-increase not exceeding $180 annually between dependent parents of deceased member.


Robert Laird Borden: As I said before,
I was somewhat impressed by the observa-
tions which have been made by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's, the hon. member for Brome, and the hon. member for Quebec South. On the other hand, I have since had the opportunity of discussing the matter with some members of the committee, and I: find that this subject received careful attention from every possible standpoint, and that there are some considerations in connection with the matter on which it is not necessary for me to dwell at the moment, and which perhaps influenced the decision of the committee to some extent. If we should attempt to depart from the report and the resolution based upon it, it would be necessary for us to ask the consent of His Excellency the Governor, General to bring down another resolution. I have reached the conclusion that under the circumstances I should ask the committee to let the Bill pass in its present form. Between now and the opening of another session we shall have an opportunity of considering the question still further, and Of ascertaining whether any sense of injustice is created by the report and by the Bill in the form now proposed. If it should transpire that such is the case, it will be open to Parliament immediately after the opening of the next session to reconsider the matter, and, if it should be deemed necessary, to make any new provision retroactive, so as to place the mothers in question upon the same basis as those who live in this country. I could add something to this, but I hope under the circumstances the committee will be content to accept this conclusion, subject to the understanding which I have just mentioned.


William Stevens Fielding: I appreciate the difficulty which my right hon. friend has referred to in opening up the matter in a form ' which will call for the introduction of a new resolution with the consequent delay. I am quite content to accept the intimation the right hon. gentleman has given that if, as a result of our experience, cases of this kind arise, as I am pretty sure they will, Parliament will take a generous view of the matter at the next session and, if need- be, make the provision retroactive. I am quite content that we should proceed to-day on the lines my right hon. friend suggests, and I think there will be no difficulty at the next session in making the desired amendment.


Charles Gavan Power: So far as I am concerned,
I have no objection to accepting what has

been asked by the Prime Minister, but my objection to the section was not based mainly on that question. 'I would move that subsection (6) be stricken from the Bill. It provides that if an unmarried son is living with a parent or person in the place of a parent and is in the opinion of the commission earning a sufficient amount to permit him to contribute to the support of' such parent, he shall be deemed to be contributing not less than $10 a month. I think it is most unfair to take $10 off the pension of a widowed mother just because she has an unmarried son living at home. I know of a case, which I called to the attention of the Pension Board, of a widowed mother with three sons, -all of whom enlisted, and two of wham were killed at the Front. One son returned and was earning a pretty good salary, and under the former regulations a large amount was deducted on account of this son. iNow it is proposed to deduct $10'from his mother's pension. I do not think there is any justice o-r fairness in it. She should not be penalized because she has had a son able to go to the Front and who has been fortunate enough to return. She has done her duty by the country when, in the first place, she brought this son into the world, and in the second place, when she sent him overseas with his two brothers. It is unfair that she should be penalized because he returned. I therefore move that this subsection be stricken from the Bill.
Amendment negatived.


Charles Gavan Power: I said I intended to fight this and I am going to, if I have to move to amend every subsection. Early this session I moved the following resolution in the House:
That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient to amend the Act to provide pensions to or in respect of members of the Canadian Naval and Military Air Forces, 1919, so as to provide that the pension of a widowed mother of a member of the forces who has died on active service shall not be reduced on account of her income and further that pension shall be granted her of night whether or not there are other living children.
This resolution was debated in the House and there was not one dissenting voice. Hon. gentlemen opposite who are so keen to say nay when my amendment is put were the very first to support the resolution when I moved it in the House at that time. The hon. member far London, who is in charge of this Bill, was the most enthusiastic supporter of the resolution. The hon. member for Oalgary, who I am 258
sorry is not in his seat, was another enthusiastic supporter of it. So was the hon. member for Skeena, the hon. member for Brantford, the hion. member for Gloucester, the hon. member for Westmorland, the horn member for Victoria, the hon. member for South Vancouver, and so on.


Richard Clive Cooper: I was not present.


Charles Gavan Power: My hon. friend would have been in favour of iit if he had been present I am sure. Now, simply because this matter was discussed by a special committee-and the committee was by no means unanimous on this question-are we to go back on a decision which was given three or four months ago in this House without a dissenting voice? Every man in the House then said it was a good thing, and that it should be adopted. The very words of the resolution are 'that the pension shall not be reduced on account of her income." That is plain enough. But we are reducing it by subsection (7) if her income exceeds $240 per annum. The resolution goes on, that the penson "shall be granted her of right." There was no question whatever about her earnings or income. The pension was to be granted her of right "whether or ndt (there are other living children.v Every hon. member who was so ready to say aye, when the question shall this subsection carry was put, was just as willing to shout aye to this resolution when I moved it in the House. Is it because this is a Government Bill that they have changed their minds? Are they frightened, or I am sorry to say was a very gallant member yesterday by a threat of the Prime Minister that perhaps the whole Bill would not pass if we opposed one little clause? I am not afraid. I know that neither the Prime Minister or anybody else would dare go to the country and say that we are obstructing the passing of this Bill because we are fighting for the widowed mothers. I defy any hon. member or any minister to say that because we are asking for a little amendment to prevent the widowed mothers' pensions from being reduced that we are obstructing the whole Bill. I am insisting on this amendment. I had the unanimous assent of the House to my resolution at the beginning of the session, and now just because we are in the closing days of the session, am I to be refused that assent? I am tired of being told that the Bill must go through in a hurry. As long as I am able to continue the debate, I am going to do so.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: My hon. friend will pardon my stupidity, but what resolution does he refer to?


Charles Gavan Power: The resolution moved on
March 15, by Mr. Charles Gavin Power, to be found at page 444 of Hansard.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: What clause of the Bill lare you trying to amend?


Charles Gavan Power: Subsection (7) of 'section 23.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: What is the amendment?


Charles Gavan Power: I move that all the words after "sources" in line 5 of page 6 of the Bill be 'Stricken out.


Donald Nicholson: I wish to say a word in support of the hon. member for Quebec South.


Charles Gavan Power: Good man.,


Donald Nicholson: I do not believe it is in harmony with the spirit of the country that we should reduce the pension of a widowed mother for any of the reasons given. I do not say this in criticism of the committee, for whom I have the highest respect. Nevertheless, I do not 'believe that it is in harmony with the spirit of the majority of the members, at least so far as they have expressed themselves, that because a woman may take in washing to the extent of $20 a month-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No. ,


Edward Walter Nesbitt: No private earnings are counted.


Donald Nicholson: The clause says that the pension 'to a widowed mother shall not be reduced on account of her earnings, etc., or on account of her having an income which does not exceed $240 per annum.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That is, income.


Donald Nicholson: Then the clause is foadly worded. But in any event, I say that if we grant a pension to a widowed mother we ought to leave her alone. The thing I object to above all is the constant harrying of the widowed mother by inspectors who go around to find out what she is getting in the shape of an income. I know what are the feelings of the woman who has lost her boy, and the question as to whether or not she is getting an income to live on should be settled in some otheT way than by having inspectors going to her home to investigate conditions and to ascertain whether she may have secured something in the Way of an income from [DOT] Mr. Power !
some source, perhaps from a daughter who is earning a little, or from a son who is gracious enough to give to his mother a part of his earnings.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Nothing is deducted on account of the daughter's earnings.


Donald Nicholson: What she receives from her daughter is part of her income "from other sources," I take it.


Charles Gavan Power: If the daughter gives her a certain amount of money, that would be regarded as income.


Donald Nicholson: I would earnestly suggest that, once having given the widowed mother a pension, we should leave her alone without constant and irritating interference.


Georges Henri Boivin: 1 cannot place before the committee the amendment submitted by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) because it is not in order. By striking out the words "240 per annum" the committee would be increasing the charges upon the public treasury, and that cannot be done unless preceded by resolution. The amendment is therefore not in order at this stage.


Charles Gavan Power: Last year when this matter was discussed the same question was brought up by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell), but I do not think he asked the mover of the resolution, the hon. member for London (Mr. Cronyn), to withdraw his amendment on that account. I think the matter was allowed to' be discussed.


Georges Henri Boivin: The matter can undoubtedly be discussed, because it is relevant to the clause which is before the committee. It can be discussed as a suggestion to the Government, but it cannot be moved in the form of an amendment.


Richard Clive Cooper: What I would direct attention to is schedule A-"Bonus outside Canada" and "Bonus in Canada." It seems to me that, under this head, we are making a provision that deliberately disregards the promises made to the men that came from the United States to join our forces. These men were unquestionably notified on enlisting that they and their dependents would without doubt participate in the full benefits given members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force. They were told that their dependents 'would benefit to the same extent as dependents of men in the C.E.F. living in Canada.

Under the provisions made here there is no such 'benefit, .and it seems to me to. be absolutely unfair, especially with reference to the United States, because there were special inducements to men in the United States to join the Canadian Expeditionary Force. With reference to dependents in the Old Country, or South Africa, or Australia, I do not so strongly emphasize this point. But I do not think that the committee should pass this schedule as it now stands, at least so far as pensioners who *are now residing in the United Statets are concerned. The cost of living to them is as high as it is to us, and furthermore, we pay them in the Canadian dollar and do not compensate them for the loss in exchange. As regards the Old Country or any other part of the Empire where our own currency is at a premium the pensioner benefits, but in the United States she does not, and I think that this question of bonus should be carefully considered before being put into force.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not know whether I would be in order or not, but I will bring the matter to the attention of the Government and ask them at least to be charitable to the widowed mother. Subsection 8 provides that the pension to a parent or person in place of a parent shall not be reduced on account of the payment to such parent or person of municipal insurance on life of a deceased member of the forces, and I would ask the Prime Minister to exempt life insurance also. It would be unfair, in my opinion, to say that if a widowed mother received a certain amount of insurance on the life of her son her pension should be diminished on that account. If the Chairman thought I was in order, I would move to amend this section to read "municipal or any other insurance." I presume, however, that the same ruling would apply in this as in the other instance. If the widowed mother receives municipal insurance nothing is deducted from her pension on that account, and I would ask the Prime Minister to consider seriously whether life insurance should not be included in this provision. I do not think it would cost the country a great deal of money if we allowed a widowed mother to enjoy her pension irrespective of a few thousand dollars that she might have received on the death of her son.


Peter McGibbon: This difficulty might be overcome by raising the amount of income in subsection 7 from $20 to $30 or $40 a month. A year ago I sug-
258J
gested that it be placed at $500 a year. Of course, the principle is absolutely sound that you should have some limit. In my opinion it would not be fair to give a pension to any one with an income of $2,000 or $3,000 a year. You . must draw the line somewhere. At the same time, I think that we might increase this amount from $20 to $30 or $40 a month; probably $30 would be reasonable. I agree with the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) that it is very irritating to widowed mothers to have visitors prying into their private affairs, and this is a matter that has caused a great deal of quiet resentment among the widowed mothers of soldiers in this country. I think that in fixing this amount we should put a reasonable figure so as to do away with a great deal of the irritation that has been caused in the past. Twenty dollars is rather too low. I do not know that it would cause any harm to leave it as it is, but undoubtedly, if it were increased, there would be less cause for complaint.


Robert Laird Borden: I shall certainly take into consideration what has been said on this subject by the hon. gentlemen who have spoken. I see some force in the observation as to the feeling of irritation which might be created by too close or too frequent inquiries into the private affairs of persons who have lost near relatives in the war. But my hon. friends will observe that it will be impossible to change this provision without bringing down another resolution. I hope therefore they will be willing to accept my assurance that what they have said in the matter will not be overlooked.
Section agreed to and Bill reported.
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Calder that the Bill be read a third time:


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: May I ask the minister in-charge of this Bill if it is the intention to consolidate the Pension Act of last year and the measure we have just passed?


James Alexander Calder: I should think there would be a consolidation made for the convenience of everybody.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: And the consolidated Bill distributed as speedily as possible?


James Alexander Calder: Yes.
Motion agreed to and Bill read third time.
At Six o'clock the House took recess.

After Recess.
The House resumed at Eight o'clock.


STATE INSURANCE FOR RETURNED SOLDIERS.
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. J. A. Calder (Minister of Immigration and Colonization), Bill No. 195 to provide for the insurance of returned soldiers by the Dominion of Canada was read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon-Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 2-Definitions.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is this Bill like the other measures dealing with pensions, based on the recommendations of the Special Commitee?


James Alexander Calder: Yes. The Special Committee went very carefully over this Bill, and, as I understand it, unanimously agreed to it.


Robert Laird Borden: It was drafted by the committee.


James Alexander Calder: With the assistance of the Superintendent of Insurance.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Insurance and limits thereof, etc.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Perhaps the most expeditious way to explain this Bill is to tell us if there is any difference between this method of insurance and the ordinary life insurance.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The Bill is founded entirely on the ordinary life insurance given by practically all insurance companies doing business in Canada. The Government bear the total expense of management. The rates are slightly below the non-participating rates of our ordinary life companies; but otherwise the Bill contains the same provisions, practically speaking, as all first-class life policies.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 15-Medical examinations.
Edward Walter Nesbitt: Perhaps I should explain that under this section no medical examination is required; that is where this contract differs very materially from the ordinary insurance contract.


Frank S. Cahill: Will the premium be the same?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The premium is slightly less than the non-participating rates of the
 .
ordinary insurance contract, those rates varying, of course, with the age of the in-' sured.
Mr. (MeMASTER: As no medical examination is required, is no one charged with the duty of seeing that the insured is not on the point of death?


Hume Cronyn: The Bill would be of no avail to the disabled returned soldier if there were to be a medical examination. It must cover, as the hon. member has just said, the man on the point of death as well as the normal man. The only protection to the country in the case of a man who is so disabled that his life is short arises from the fact that under the provisions of section 10, if the insured's death is due to war service, and his dependents are pensionable, they do not draw any benefit from the insurance policy, but they are entitled to a return of the premiums with interest. If, however, his death is due to natural causes his dependents get the benefit of the policy.
M.r CAHILL: I presume this is entirely for soldiers?


Hume Cronyn: Entirely.
Mr. iOAHILL : Is there no time limit within which a soldier must take advantage of this insurance?


Hume Cronyn: One of the last sections provides that a soldier-that expression including a sailor, a nurse, and the widow of soldier killed in, action-can take advantage of this insurance any time within two years of the passing of the Act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 19-Statement to be made for minister, etc.
James Alexander Calder: I move to amend clause
19 by inserting after the word "The" in the first line of subsection (2) the following words:	"Superintendent of Insurance, or
such other officer as may be appointed for that purpose by the Governor in Council."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
*Section as amended agreed to.
On section 20-No insurance after 1st July, 1922.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: The marginal note needs correction.
Mr. 'CRONYN:	The main body of the
Bill -was amended by the committee, but the marginal note was overlooked.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The marginal
note should be changed to 1st September, 1922?


Hume Cronyn: Yes,
Mr. iMcKENZIE: Would it not be better to have that section read: "No application for insurance shall be received after the 1st day of September, nineteen hundred and twenty-two"? There may be some applications on hand that it will be impossible to get out at that date.


James Alexander Calder: I think the suggestion
is a good one. I therefore move to amend the section by substituting for the words "contract of insurance shall 'be issued" in the first line thereof the following words, "application for insurance shall be received." The section will then read:
No application tor insurance shall he received under this Aot after the first day of September, nineteen hundred and twenty-two.
-Clause as amended agreed to.
On section 21-Commencement of Act.


James Alexander Calder: There is one feature of
the Bill that I think should be clearly explained to the House,-the provision whereby the widows of soldiers may be insured without examination. I am not personally familiar with the details, but no doubt the chairman of the committee, who thoroughly understands the measure, will explain to the House that feature, because so far as I am concerned I would not like the Bill to go through unless the committee understands that that provision is embodied.


Hume Cronyn: The Bill as originally drawn did not contain a provision for the insurance of widows of deceased soldiers, but on consideration by the committee that -class of persons was added as insurable. It was argued-and I think with a good deal of force-that widows as a class would form a good insurable risk, and that so far as the country was concerned there was no added liability, the premiums being based on a recognized table of mortality. She is allowed to insure for the benefit of the restricted class of beneficiaries set out in section 4 of the Act,-wife, husband, -child, grandchild, parent, brother or sister. But it is necessary for her to show at the time of the application for insurance that the beneficiary under her policy is dependent on her. In the case of children, that would be easy; if the beneficiary were some one else in the class named she would have to satisfy the department in charge of the carrying out of the Act that the beneficiary is dependent. She could not take
advantage of the Act unless she had dependents, within the limited class, who -may be named as beneficiaries.


Frank S. Cahill: Will the department in charge of the administration of this legislation notify -all returned -soldiers and dependents who may come under its previsions, in order that they may avail themselves of it if they wish to do so?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Yes, the department will immediately notify them all.


James Alexander Robb: I suppose it is not the intention of the Government to create too much new machinery throughout Canada to take care of this business? I suggest that it might be economically administered through the Post Office Department or the. Customs Department, which have branches in many cities and towns throughout Canada.


James Alexander Calder: There is no desire to create any .machinery that is not absolutely necessary for the carrying out of the law. No final decision has yet been reached as to what machinery shall be used, -but as the Board of Pension Commissioners have an organization spread over the whole country and are in touch with the persons who may be affected by this law, they probably would be the best organization to look after its administration.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Would it be asking too much to request that ministers who are in charge of Bills and members of the Opposition who are replying speak in a tone other than that employed in a secret conference? Early in the session the suggestion was made that members of the Cabinet and hon. gentlemen on the front Opposition benches move down toward the centre of the Chamber, and I believe that there was an understanding to the effect that that would be done. -Since it has not been done, I think we have a right to request that hon. gentlemen who speak, at least do so in a tone that may be heard by the Third party in this House, so that we may know something about what is going on. On several occasions I have been surprised upon reading in Hansard some of the things that vere said the previous day and which I had not heard. Certainly if I had heard some of the things that were said I should have had some remarks to make with regard to them. Unfortunately, we of the Third party are not privileged to move up to seats nearer to hon. members who are speaking, as -members of the Government

and Opposition are. I feel very strongly on this matter.	*
An ho-n. MEMBER:	Coim-e along this
way.


An hon. MEMBER:: The pews are all
free.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I do not feel at home in them.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, and read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. N. W. ROWELL (Minister of Public Health) moved that the amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 127, to amend the Canada Shipping Act (Sick and Distressed Mariners) be read the second time and concurred in.
Mt. CANNON:: What is the nature of the amendment?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The Bill as passed by
this House provided for an increased duty or charge on all vessels entering Canadian ports. The present duty is one and one half cents per ton, and under the Bill it is increased to two cents per ton, the increase to go into effect on the first of January next. The Senate has introduced an amendment providing that the date on which this increased duty shall go into effect may be deferred beyond' the first of January next by proclamation of the Governor in Council. Hon. members will recall that when the matter was before the House it was alleged that the effect of the imposition of the present duty was to cause the American Government to impose upon Canadian ships entering American ports a very much higher charge. I intimated to the committee that the Department of Justice was looking into the matter. The Department advise us that they do not think there is any justification under the law for that increased charge being imposed on Canadian vessels entering American ports, and the matter will be taken up with the proper authorities. It may be desirable not to impose the increased duty until that question can be further considered; therefore the Senate amendment may, I think, safely be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of the amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 53, to- amend the Civil Service Act,
1918,	and the Civil Service Amendment Act,
1919.
Newton Wesley Rowell: I beg to move:
(1)	That the second amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 53. "An Act to amend the Civil Service Act 1918, and1 the Civil Service Act, 1919". be concurred in.
(2)	That the first amendment made by the Senate be not concurred in, for the following reason namely:
That such amendment is inconsistent with the principles of the Civil Service legislation embodied in the Civil Service Acts of 1908, 1918 and 1919 and is subversive of the policy of Civil Service reform which! has 'been -repeatedly approved by the Parliament of Canada and by the electorate.
The Senate has made two -amendments to the Bill. The first, in 'respect of which I have moved non-concurrence, and which follows- section 2 of the Bill as it passed this House, provides that all appointments -to -the staff of the Senate shall- be withdrawn from the provisions of the Civil Service Act; that -all the privileges -an-d immunities *and powers of the Senate with -respect to these appointments which existed prior to the passing of the Civil Service Act of 1908 and of the Acts which have since passed shall -be deemed to exist unimpaired, and further, that all privileges, including increase of salary due to re-classification and all other privileges which have accrued to employees of the Senate under the various Civil Service Acts, shall be continued to them, notwithstanding that by the amendment they are withdrawn from the operation of the Act. The position as regards employees of the -Senate is this. At the present time the temporary employees, who constitute the majority of the employees of the Senate, are under the control of the Speaker,of the Senate, just as the temporary employees who constitute the majority of the employees of this House, are under the control of the Speaker of this House. The Civil Service Act, therefore, applies only to the permanent employees. Under the legislation of 1918 and 1919, there is no change as regards the Senate employees, except a -change which is a benefit to the employees through the re-classification and the improved salaries. They were brought under the Civil -Service Act by the original Act of 1908, and the action of the Sen-

ate is to take them out from under the Act of 1908. That is the reason why I submit that this is subversive of the policy of Civil Service reform, as repeatedly approved by this House and by the electorate. The Act of 1908 which placed the Inside Civil Service under the Civil Service Commission was an Act accepted by this House, which has not been challenged by either party nor has it been challenged in any of the elections since that date. To accept the amendment would be to go back on the whole principle of Civil Service reform as applied to the public service, and I submit the House cannot properly accept this amendment without abandoning the principle which both parties in this House have agreed upon with reference to the Inside Civil Service. If there has been any difference, it has been in regard to the Outside Service.
The second amendment relates to the holidays which may he enjoyed in the public service. It comes in the form of an addition to the Bill as section 6 and it sets out the -holidays that shall be observed in and by the Civil Service:
(1)	Sundays;
(2)	New Tear's Day;
(3)	Good Friday:
(4)	Easter Monday;
(5 ) Victoria Day;
(6)	The birthday of the reigning Sovereign, or the day fixed by proclamation by the Governor in Council for the celebration thereof;
(7)	Dominion Day ;
(8)	Labour Day;
(9 ) Christmas Day;
(10) Any day appointed by proclamation by the Governor in Council to be observed as a general fast or thanksgiving or as a holiday.
The Senate, add another clause as clause (7), these two additions being covered by the second amendment which I moved should be concurred in. Under the Civil Service Act of last session, provision is made that appointments in respect of the Government railways and His Majesty's ships shall not come within the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission. I understand some question has been raised as to the proper interpretation of the words "His Majesty's ships." Recently, the question came up and the Department of Justice advised the commission that they thought it desirable that the words "His Majesty's ships" should be more clearly defined so that there would be no question w'hat came within the jurisdiction of the commission and what did not. The Senate has, therefore, added clause (7) as follows:
In this section the expression "ship of His Majesty" includes every description of vessel,,
however propelled, which is used in navigation or in the improvement of navigation, and which is the property of or chartered or employed by His Majesty, or the cost of which, or any portion of the cost of which, has been defrayed out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.
This is an interpretative clause which, I am informed, carries out the intention of the section as enacted last session. I understand the first amendment, the one in which I have moved non-concurrence, was the occasion of discussion in the other chamber and a pretty nearly equal division of opinion. The second amendment, embracing the two changes to which I have referred, was, I believe, adopted by the Senate with practical unanimity. The Bill is one of great public importance affecting the whole Civil Service; it is very important that it should pass into law this session, and while one recognizes the right of the other chamber to pass upon these matters, I think we are going a fair way to meet their view and, I trust, to preserve the Bill unimpaired in its essential features if we concur in those amendments in respect of which the Senate was practically unanimous and if we dissent from the other amendment which we cannot accept without impairing the whole principle of the Bill.


Mr. TRAHAN:: If I understand the minister aright, he wishes the House to accept the amendment covering the new clauses 6 and 7 and to refuse concurrence in the other amendment. Is that right?
, Mr ROWELL: That is correct.


Arthur Trahan: I believe the new clause 6 which has been added by the Senate will have the effect of diminishing the number of holidays for the Civil Service and of putting civil servants who belong to the Catholic .religion in a false position. I notice that some holidays which are observed by Catholics are not mentioned in the new clause 6, so that Catholic civil servants will be in this position:	Under
the law of their religion, they cannot work on Holy days of obligation, and under the proposed amendment they will be obliged to work. It would be a good principle to be followed by the House to respect the religious convictions of all civil servants', and for that reason we should not concur in the amendment embodying the proposed new clause 6 of the Bill.	/


Lucien Cannon: As the minister has remarked these amendments are very important. Unfortunately, we have not these

amendments cdore us and we cannot very intelligently discuss their nature and effect. The minister has them, but we have not.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member will find the amendments set forth in the Votes and Proceedings of the 19th June.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I have consulted the Parliamentary Counsel and I am advised that the usual form is to move concurrence in such amendment as the Government thinks should be concurred in, and non-concurrence in the other. I have had the resolution drawn by the Parliamentary Counsel in order that it might be in the proper fo^m.


Lucien Cannon: 
Mr. H. A. MACKIE (East Edmonton):: So far as the Roman Catholic Church is concerned, it is quite possible for a Roman Catholic on the days of obligation to attend divine service in the early morning, and perform his regular duties afterwards. That practice has often been urged in the Catholic Church. But I would draw this point to the attention of the House and particularly of the Government. While it is possible on these feasts of obligation for Roman Catholics to attend to their religious duties in the early morning, it seems to me that at a time like this, when there is a great deal of dissatisfaction all over the country, we should not do anything to create more dissatisfaction in a whole province of this Dominion by taking action that will lead the people of that province to believe that this Government is particularly anxious to deprive them of their religious liberty. I regret very much that this matter has come up in that form. I do not think the Senate amendment regarding legal holidays in the Civil Service should be concurred in, not because the members of the Roman Catholic Church cannot practise their religion on these feasts of obligation, but becaiuse of the general opinion it would create that the Government was infringing on their rights. I trust that the Government will refrain from any such action that will make for the unity of Canada rather than the disruption of our national life.


John Wesley Edwards: The Senate, I understand, has proposed two amendments and the minister in charge of the Bill has moved concurrence in one and non-concurrence in the other. I find myself in the position of disagreeing with the minister in his attitude on both these amendments. In so far as the Senate proposes to take the appointment of certain officials out of the hands of the Civil Service Commission and in so far as that action on their part is a step in the direction towards sanity, so far as the outside service is concerned, I would feel inclined to approve of the Senate's action. I am consistent in taking that stand because from the beginning I have never favoured placing the outside civil service under the Civil Service Commission.
As to the other Senate amendment, which the minister moved concurrence in, I think that the statements made by the hon. member for Nicolet (Mr. Trahan) and the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr._ Cannon) should receive the sympathetic and serious consideration of this House. If it is true, as the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Mackie) has stated, that Roman Catholics can perform their religious duties in the early morning on these religious holidays, perhaps no great hardship will be done, but I did not get that impression from the statements of the hon. member for Nicolet (Mr. Trahan) and the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon). I have no hesitation whatever in saying that it is most unfair, most unreasonable, and most, unjust to expect civil servants to attend to their duties as civil servants in violation of the principles of their religion, whether I agree with those principles or not. I must therefore express my dissent from concurrence in the one amendment, while my sympathy goes out to the amendment proposed by the Senate in so far as it seeks to relieve its staff from the ministrations and control of the Civil Service Commission.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I merely want to ask a question of the minister. If hon. members desire to concur in part of the amendment but cannot see their way to agree to the other part, will it be possible for them, by means of a vote, to express their views on this question? I fancy that there may be a good many hon. members who will find themselves in a position to concur in one amendment moved by the Senate while they may disapprove of the other, and they would desire to register their views accordingly.


Newton Wesley Rowell: If his Honour the Speaker thinks that under the practice the resolution can be properly divided, I see not the least objection to a division of it. It was prepared by Parliamentary Counsel, but I would ask that it be divided.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: With all deference to
the Parliamentary Counsel, whose opinion I hold in high regard, I think the better procedure would be to take up each amend-' ment separately. That would enable hon. members, if they so desire, to vote for one and against the other/ If the hon. minister will withdraw his motion I will submit it in two parts. Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. minister have leave to withdraw his motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.
Motion withdrawn.
Mr. MACKIE. (Edmonton): What is the position of the Government on this question? I did not hear what the minister said.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The minister has withdrawn his motion and it is now his intention to submit the amendments seriatim.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I move, Mr. Speaker,
that the first amendment made by the Senate to section 2 be not concurred in, for the following reasons:
That such amendment is inconsistent with the principles of the Civil Service legislation embodied in the Civil Service Acts of 1908, 1918 and 1919, and is subversive of the policy of Civil Service reform which has been repeatedly approved by the Parliament of Canada and by the electorate.
Mr. PETER, McGIBBON (Muskoka):	I
concur in the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Frontenac. I am absolutely opposed, as I have frequently stated in this House, to the Civil Service Commission controlling all the patronage in this country. It is not getting rid of patronage but simply diverting it from responsible members of Parliament to three men who are responsible to nobody. I thin! the principle is all wrong. It relieves members of Parliament of their responsibility to their constituencies and is therefore opposed to the best interests of the country. The people do not want it, and I venture to say that the majority of hon. members in this House do not want it. I think that the principle of handing over the control of the ^ntire Civil Service to the commission is wrong; I have opposed it consistently and will oppose it to the end. There

is no better way of making a member of Parliament responsible to his people than to make him responsible for the appointments in his constituency. That principle has been a time-honoured one in this country, and I think it was a mistake ever to depart from it; and the day is coming when we shall once more make those who are actually responsible bear the responsibility that belongs to their position.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: As I understand the amendment, it is that the servants of the Senate be exempted from the provisions of the Civil Service Act. If I am wrong I desire to be corrected. If there is any dissatisfaction with the Act and we are going to amend it, I think it would be a mistake to amend it piecemeal. It is just as right to bring -the servants of the Senate under the Civil Service Act as to bring the servants of the Commons under that Act, and it would be the greatest mistake in the world to amend the Act in any piecemeal fashion. So far as I am concerned, therefore, I will support the motion of the minister.	-


Mr. JOHN BEST (Dufferin):: I heartily agree with the Senate in trying to abolish if possible the Civil Service Commission so far as the outside service is concerned. I honestly believe that very much of the unrest we are experiencing in Canada to-day is indirectly due to the fact that the Civil Service is under the control of a commission. We hear it stated from one end of Canada to the other to-day that there is no such thing as a Parliament or a Government, but only the Civil Service Commission. When ministers of the Crown have not the power to select men to suit themselves, they must take those whom the Civil Service Commission gives them. I have been opposed to this matter from the first and am still opposed to it. I think the action of the Senate was in the right direction and I believe it is high time for the Government to step in and see that the Civil Service Commisiosn have nothing to do with the outside service. I could never understand how three men sitting dn Ottawa could know who would be fit for appointment in the county I represent, or in any other county. I honestly am of opinion that nutting the service under the control of the Civil Service Commission is not abolishing patronage but only transferring it from the people's representatives, who are responsible to the public, to an irresponsible body. When appointments are to be made the

commission must inquire in every county in Canada as to who should be appointed, and if they are not going to make inquiry of the people's representatives, to whom will they go for information as to those whom it is desirable to appoint? I repeat, therefore, that it ds only transferring patronage from responsible to irresponsible persons. Having travelled up and down the country and heard people discuss the subject, I believe that a lot of the unrest in Canada is caused by the Civil Service Commission. Every few days we get a list a yard long in regard to positions vacant, and the Government is appointing a committee to re-organize the Civil Service with a view to reducing the number of employees if possible. I was handed a list the other day about a yard long and I thought that if they went on appointing civil servants they would in a very short time double the number instead of reducing it. I hope the Government will see its way to abolish the Civil Service Commision so far as the outside service is concerned, for I believe that this would be the means of allaying a great deal of the unrest that prevails in Canada to-day.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I must point out to the House that the question of abolishing the Civil Service Commission, and the broader question regarding its functions, cannot properly be discussed under this motion, which has purely to do with the question as to whether the Senate staff shall be exempted from the provisions of an Act already on the statute book. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.
Motion for non-concurrence in first amendment made by the Senate to section 2, agreed to.


Mt.   HOWELL@: I move that the second amendment made by the Senate, adding sections 6 and 7 to Bill 53, an Act to amend the Civil Service Act, 1918 and the Civil Service Amendment Act, 1919, be concurred in.


Arthur Trahan: Mr. Speaker-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. gentleman,
perhaps technically, has exhausted his right to speak because he has already spoken on this resolution; but if he has any fresh observations to make, in view of the fact that the previous motion was withdrawn, I am quite content to ask the unanimous consent of the House for him to speak.


Robert Laird Borden: Carried.

Unanimous consent granted.
Hon. H. S. BE,LAND (Beauce):	The
House has had the agreeable spectacle of the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Ed-7'ards) agreeing on this question with the hon. member for Nicolet (Mr. Trahan). This is rather an edifying example which should be followed in this House; but now the question at stake is more serious than would appear at first sight. The Senate has adopted an amendment, the purport of which means that civil servants will not be relieved from their work on certain days which are specified in this amendment. Reading over the different days that are mentioned in the new section, at first sight I find that one or two days are not mentioned upon which it is a conscientious obligation for the civil servants who belong to the Catholic faith to attend church before twelve o'clock. If this amendment should be concurred in by the House it will become the law of the country and then you would-as was very well pointed out by the hon. member for Nicolet-force civil servants belonging to the Catholic church to disobey their church; to either ignore the dictates of their conscience or to disobey the law Of the country. This is a very serious predicament in which to place men . belonging to a religious faith. I would therefore urge the minister not to press the concurrence of the House in this amendment, and I would also ask all lion, members to vote against concurrence in the amendment. I am sure the minister will see the force of the reasons and the arguments that are advanced by hon. members on both sidese.


Arthur Trahan: I do not know whether I am in order, but I would like to move an amendment to the motion made by the minister to the following effect:
That all the words after ''that" toe struck out and replaced by the following-:
"That this House do not concur in the amendment embodied in the new clause 6' in this Bill relating to holidays ,because this amendment has the effect of encroaching upon the religious rights and privileges of many civil servants."
Let me ,say a few words in explanation. It was understood at the beginning of this debate that the amendments made by the Senate would be divided. If I understand the position well there were three amendments: One amendment relating to the Senate staff, a second embodying the new clause 6 referring to holidays, and a tihrid embodying the new clause 7. If we had
followed the course agreed upon we would have dealt with each clause separately. Not having done that I deem it necessary to move ithe amendment which I have read.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: In my judgment this
amendment is not in order because, in effect, it is negative of the motion now before the House, and the same result would be obtained if that motion is voted *against. For that reason in my judgment the amendment is not in order. I therefore so rule.


Frank S. Cahill: I see the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) in his seat. I would like to ask him, before pressing this motion, that he ask to have this particular amendment reconsidered: by the Senate, and that the Catholic members of the House be consulted to see if it is not possible to have the holidays restored that were previously in the Act.
I find that the Senate by their amendment are cutting out All Saints' Day, Epiphany, Ascension Day and Ash Wednesday; and they are leaving untouched Victoria Day, the birthday of the reigning sovereign, Dominion Day, Labour Day and Christmas Day. Now this is a very serious question to many Catholics; it is perhaps more serious than many hon. members realize. It means that you are asking civil .servants of the Catholic faith .practically to work on Sundays which they would have serious objection to doing. I think the Prime Minister would be well advised if he were to reconsider this motion.


Robert Laird Borden: I am sure that no member of the Government would desire to take any course which would interfere with the conscientious, scruples of any person in this oountTy; and hon. members will bear in mind that the Bill, as prepared by the Government and presented to and passed by this House did not contain the provision in question. I think that hon. gentlemen who have spoken on the question have taken a somewhat exaggerated view of its effects. It does not follow at all, even if we should concur in the Senate amendment, that any person in this country to whom it "vyas a matter of conscientious obligations to attend church on a particular day should be denied that right. I aim not familiar with the extent 1 of the obligation alluded to, and I do not 1 know whether it would interfere with the obligation of any officer to discharge his

official 'duties, after he had attended to the religious duties to. which reference has been made. I iwas rather under the impression that after attending church and attending to -any other religious duties that might be incumbent upon him, attendance in his office afterwards would not violate any conscientious obligation on lii's part.


Mr. VIEN:: Would the Prime Minister allow me to correct him upon that point? 'The rulp as to these -feasts of .Obligation is absolutely the same as for the observance of the Sunday.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, I speak
under correction. The hon. gentleman, of course, is much more familiar with these matters than I am. But I do desire to point out to hon. gentlemen that in some of the provinces these days are not statutory holidays, and the officers of the Government in those provinces are not relieved, by statute at least, from the obligation to attend to thdir ordinary duties; but1 I have not heard that any difficulty has arisen, the reason- 'being, I imagine, that those charged with the responsibility of government in those provinces have due and f reasonable regard to the conscientious scru-i pies of the civil servants- under their control.
I would think that even if this- amendment - were concurred in the same result might confidently he anticipated so far as those l engaged in the service of the Dominion are concerned. I regret that the -Senate- have seen fit to make this amendment, and I would greatly have preferred that they had left the Bill in the form in which it passed this House; but hon. gentlemen will realize that the Government would he assuming a serious responsibility if it -took such a stand upon the amendment as would result in the Bill failing to become law.


Arthur Trahan: We did not concur in the other amendment.


Robert Laird Borden: I know, but that other -amendment directly involved a principle adopted1 by Parliament. This amendment seems to me to- be of a somewhat different character for the reason that/1 do not think persons charged with the responsibilities of government in this country would seek to impose upon any civil servant such duties as would be contrary to the obligations placed upon him by his conscience; 1 and as matters of this- kind have been V worked out without friction and1 difficulty in the provinces where these days are not
[Sir Robert Borden. 1
public holidays-, so, I think, they might be worked out without difficulty in the offices of this Dominion.	S
I am content to let the matter stand for the present to see whether there is any probability that the Bill can 'become law if we decline to concur in the other proposed by the Senate. While I have not read the Senate debate, I understand that this amendment did pass there with very little discussion and with no serious objection. I am also informed that the Senate are not likely to withdraw from the position which they have taken in this respect. Under these circumstances, hon. gentlemen will see that the (Government would have a considerable responsibility imposed upon it if this Bill, upon which -so much depends for thousands of civil servants throughout the country, should fail to 'become law. For the present, however, if hon. gentlemen will consent that this motion stand, I shall he glad to give the matter further consideration.


Thomas Vien: Before-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Perhaps the right hon. gentleman ('Sir Robert Borden) will move the adjournment of the debate.


Robert Laird Borden: Unless the hon. gentleman wishes to speak first.


Thomas Vien: Before the matter stands-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I cannot see any object in discussing the amendment if the motion is going to stand.


Robert Laird Borden: Then I move the adjournment of the debate. My hon. friend (Mr. Vien) will have an opportunity later to- continue the discussion.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.


RETIREMENT OF MEMBERS OF PUBLIC -SERVICE.
[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill No. 120, to provide for the Retirement of Certain Members of the Public Service-Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-Definitions.
James Alexander Calder: I move to amend section I by striking out the word "and" in the eleventh line of the said section and by adding thereto the following words: "and the Commissioner of Patents during the continuance of office of the present holder of that office." I understand that the present Commissioner of Patents is classed

as a deputy minisister, but that when he retires it is not proposed to appoint another deputy minister to that office.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 2-report by Civil Service Commission upon character of service of all officers of sixty-five and over:
Lucien Cannon: Is it the intention to have this work done by the Civil Service Commission, or will it be referred to foreign experts, as the classification was?


James Alexander Calder: The clause provides that
. it shall be done by the Civil Service Commission; no action can be taken without a report from them. I suggest that in the second line of subsection 1 the words "from time to time when requested: by the Governor in Council shall' be inserted after the word "Act".


William Lyon Mackenzie King: One feature
that- suggests: it self in connection with the amendment just proposed is the authority vested in the Governor in Council to be constantly setting .this machinery in motion for the purpose-I will not say of intimidating civil servants, but at least of making them feel that their positions are more or less jeopardized unless they act always in accord with the wishes of the ministry. There is much to be said in favour of creating among members of the service a feeling of permanency in their positions. Men very often give up a great deal in order to enter the Service-that is, those who take the higher and more professional positions;, and it seems to me that if this amendment is adopted, having the effect of enabling the Governor in Council at any time to instruct some court or other body to examine into the behaviour, so to apeak, of individual members of the Service, the service will be weakened; men will think three times instead of twice before entering the Service. I think the clause is open to that possible objection and ought to be considered from that point of view.


James Alexander Calder: I am inclined bo think
that the criticism made is justifiable. My own view is that at the next session of Parliament a proper superannuation and pension Bill should be brought down, and that if anything is to be done under this Bill it should be done between now and the bringing down of such legislation. It is perhaps better to leave the Bill as it
originally stood; I therefore ask for leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment withdrawn.


Mr. CROTHERS:: Subsection 2 provides that the Civil Service Commission "shall, when requested by the Governor in Council," do so and so. In other words, they may do it five years from now or ten yeaTS from now. The Bill applies to all civil servants in Canada and is effective for all time, or until repealed or amended. It does not require any contribution on the part of civil servants in respect of the allowances provided. I do not think it is the will of hon. members that this legislation should be made permanent, providing as it does for the superannuation of civil servants of all classes without their contributing anything to the fund out of which the superannuation allowances shall he paid. The minister says it is not the intention that the measure shall be continued for all time. Well, something to that effect should be put in the Bill. 'Somebody else may be minister in ten, fifteen or twenty years, and unless this legislation is amended or repealed in the meantime the new ministers might say: "We find legislation on the statute book which enables us to superannuate civil servants under certain conditions without their contributing anything to the superannuation fund." I do not think that this Bill should be allowed to stand as it is without any limitation as to the time during which it shall be effective.
Mr. ClALiDER:	I am inclined to think
that the point is well taken. I am strongly in favour of a proper superannuation scheme in respect of which civil servants should make contributions. But as I pointed out on the second reading of the Bill, there are a number of civil servants who should be retired and who have not made any such contributions; we are merely endeavouring to provide some plan under which they can be retired. I certainly agree that the provisions of this Bill should not be continued indefinitely; therefore I will prepare an appropriate clause to add at the end of the Bill limiting the time during which it shall operate.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Why should
not the minister make subsection 2 correspond with subsection 1 by making it .read "the Civil Service Commission shall, immediately after 4he passing of this Act" instead of "the Civil Service Commission shall, when requested by the Governor in Council"? Would that not cover the point?

Mr. 'CALDER :	Subsection 1 covers a
comparatively limited class, respecting which the necessary information can be obtained in a very short time, but subsection 2 covers practically the entire Civil Service. It would be impossible to make that examination and report immediately after the Bill passes. I dare say the commission would arrange to take up one department after another; the work would extend, I am quite sure, over a comparatively long period of time. So that if we simply provide that the Bill shall continue in operation only for a certain period, I think that will meet the objection raised by my hon. friend (Mr. Crothers).


Lucien Cannon: Subsection 1 covers the
case of civil servants who are sixty-five years of age or over; subsection 2 those who are under sixty-five. Subsection 2 is very wide; it gives the Civil Service 'Commission power to remove any employee for any reason. There is an enumeration of causes which reads:
By reason of advancing age, failing health, physical disability, lack of experience or abil-, ity or other cause.
What might the "other cause" be?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Patronage.


James Alexander Calder: Any cause.


Lucien Cannon: There is no restriction at all, and I think the wording is far too wide and indefinite. The wording of the clause is wide enough to allow a deputy head of a department to take advantage of this clause and remove an employee for no other reason than personal dislike. If the words "or other cause" were removed, Civil Service employees would have some safeguard and protection. The enumeration covers all reasonable causes, and I do not think there is any justification for the words "or other cause."	.


James Alexander Calder: My intention was to make the clause even wider in order that there should be no misunderstanding at all. I was intending to suggest that there be inserted after the word "ability" in the second last line the words "lack of employment." The hon. gentleman, I am sure, understands the situation. Every member of the House knows that in some departments of Government there is an overmanning, an over-staffing, and what we desire to do is to arrange for cutting down all unnecessary staffs. In addition to that, I think it is only fair to point this out, that without this Bill, the Governor in Council has power at any time to retire any civil

servant. All civil servants, as I understand the matter, are appointed at the pleasure of the Crown; but we do not wish to retire men who have been in the service for a considerable time without making some provision for them, and the chief principle of the Bill is to provide something for such men. I think the clause is weak, because it does not intimate quite clearly that we should have power to retire men simply because there is no work for them to do.


Lucien Cannon: I wish the minister to understand me aright. I have no objection to a civil servant being removed if there is no occasion for his employment or if he does not fulfil his duties properly. Let the minister insert in the clause specific reasons and I will raise no objection, but I say that the words "or other cause" are so wide that a good civil servant might be removed for no good reason.


James Alexander Calder: I quite appreciate the viewpoint of the hon. gentleman and I agree with him in a very large measure. For the purpose of endeavouring to safeguard the service and in order that Parliament might know exactly what was done and why it was done, there was added to the Bill clause 7 which provides:
An annual report shall be made to Parliament by the Civil Service Commission giving the name, age, and' salary, and length, mature and place of service, and reasons for retirement of every person who is retired under the provisions of this Act, and the amounts paid or to be paid to such person hereunder.
That is, if action is to be taken under this Bill, we feel that it \is only right that, in the first place, that action should be founded upon the joint report of the Civil Service Commission and the deputy head of the department, and that after action is taken, there should be annually submitted to Parliament full details as to every civil servant who is retired, giving his length of service, age, salary, the amount that he receives under this Bill and the reasons for his retirement. The Government, in the preparation of this Bill, has attempted at any rate to safeguard the point which the hon. member has in mind, I do not anticipate that there is any desire to play politics with this measure. What we are anxious for is to have some provision made whereby we can take the necessary steps to help straighten out the service. As a result of what has gone on for some twenty or thirty years, we all feel and civil servants themselves feel, that there is not in the Service the efficiency that there should

be, simply because the Civil Service knows that this overmanning exists in many departments and that there are in the service many who should be retired, lor various reasons. 1 hope the hon. gentleman will understand that as regards this Bill we have endeavoured to protect as far as we can the matter which he has in mind.


Lucien Cannon: I appreciate the minister's remarks, but I do not think clause 7 gives proper protection to civil servants. It is always very easy to find a reason to dismiss a civil employee, and there is a historical example which is famous and known to every member of this committee. ABout thirty or forty years ago there was a Lieutenant Governor of Quebec who thought fit to dismiss his premier. The Lieutenant Governor was a Liberal and the Prime Minister was a Tory. At that time Sir John A. Macdonald was Prime Minister of Canada, and some of his supporters introducecd into the House a resolution to the effect that the Lieutenant. Governor of Quebec should be removed. The motion was carried; but the Governor General of Canada at that time, the Marquis of Lome, thought the Lieutenant Governor should not ibe dismissed, and before following the advice of the ministers of the day he consulted the Imperial authorities. The Imperial authorities reported to the Governor General that he should follow the advice of his ministers. This was a purely political case where a Tory Government wanted to get rid of a Liberal Lieutenant Governor of Quebec, and the reason given was that his usefulness had ceased. It will be very easy for the Civil Service Commission to say, in the report mentioned in clause 7, that an employee has been removed because his usefulness has ceased, but the indefiniteness of the term does not remove the injustice. I should like civil servants, if they are not useful, to be removed; but on the other hand, I should like civil servants to be protected so as not to be altogether in the hands of an arbitrary head of a department who can throw them out of employment if he wishes to. Let the Government bring down legislation saying that for such specific causes a civil servant may be dismissed, and I will say: Well and good. But the clause ought to be less general in its terms. The minister says:	We do not want to play party
politics with this Bill. I accept the minister's word, and I am sure he would be the last to play politics, because he is not
used to that. But we have a very recent example that has come to my experience. There is in Ottawa a head of a department who has been asked to resign. This gentleman gave perfect satisfaction to the public and he was a most efficient employee. I can say who he is^-he is the French Librarian. There was no reason at all to remove him; but on the other hand a place was wanted for a political friend and this gentleman was told by a most responsible party that he should resign. He has resigned; he has left the Service; but for some reason or another, the gentleman was to be given the position did not get it. If that can be done to a deputy minister and a man of such prominence as the Librarian of Parliament, what can be done with an ordinary clerk? I think the Government ought to be more cautious in this clause.


Thomas Vien: Could not the minister withdraw entirely the words 'or other cause"?


James Alexander Calder: It would not hurt if that were done. In reply to the hon. member for Dorchester, (Mr. Cannon) it seems to me that except for these words "or other cause", the clause is very specific. It says:
The names of all officers who, being under sixty-five years of age. and, by reason of advancing age, failing health, physical disability, lack of experience or ability.
I would be quite prepared to drop the phrase "or other cause" and substitute for it "or lack of employment", because I think the words "or other cause" leave a certain amount of latitude that probably should not be in the Bill. I therefore move accordingly.


Mr. JACOBS:: I notice that subsection 2 provides that removal may take place when the party is under sixty-five years of age, one of the reasons for removal being advancing age. It seems to me that advancing age is not of itself a cause of disability. If advancing age produces failing health or physical disability, it would be good reason for removing an official, but taken by itself it is no ground for removal, because we are' all suffering from advancing age every day. While I am on my feet might I also refer to subsection (I) of section 2, which provides that the Civil Service Commission may deal with officers of the age of sixty-five years and over who are not rendering good and efficient service for the remuneration that is being paid them. Why should we put an age limit under which a person cannot be removed who is not rendering

good and efficient service for the remuneration that is being paid? I believe that a man of half sixty-five years of age who is not rendering proper service ought to be removed. Age ought not to weigh with the Civil Service Commission.


Samuel Hughes: What is meant by "lack of employment", and who is to determine the lack of employment?


James Alexander Calder: It would be determined by the Civil Service Commission and the deputy head of the department.


Samuel Hughes: Suppose the head of a department wished to get rid of a clerk, it might be an easy matter for the deputy head to put this clerk in some office where the work was falling off.


James Alexander Calder: There is provision under the Civil Service Act for the transfer of clerks from one department to the other. The Civil Service Commission keep these possible transfers before them all 'the time, and a good many transfers are being made from time to time. If any person should be retired under this Bill who was able to fill a vacancy in another department, I. am quite sure an effort would be made to find employment for him in that other department. I am inclined to think the point raised by my hon. friend from George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) is well taken.
- Instead of saying "advancing age" I think it would be better to say "advanced age."


Thomas Vien: Does not the 'Civil Service Act provide that on reaching a certain age a civil servant can be superannuated?


James Alexander Calder: That applies only to those who come under the Superannuation Act. When they reach a certain age, sixty, I believe, they can be superannuated, but a large number of civil servants1 are not under that Act at all,, and we are here endeavouring to provide for that class.


Samuel William Jacobs: I scarcely think that
changing the word "advancing" to "advanced" would meet the exigencies of the case. If we fix sixty-five years as the age at which the commission can lay hands on an official, what does the minister consider as "advanced age" before sixty-five? A man may be of advanced age at the age of fifty-five, and again a man of eighty-five may be able to earn his remuneration. I think it would be well to strike out that phrase entirely.


James Alexander Calder: I think the purpose might be met by leaving that out entirely.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I think it would be
better if we said, lack of experience or ability or lack of suitable work. I would like to see subsection (2) of section 2 so amended that the retirement should receive the approval of the deputy head. This is not required by the Bill. All that is required is that the deputy head must be consulted. He is not required to give his assent to the removal of an officer. There is another thing. I dislike the idea of placing in the hands of any one the power to retire a man without giving him a chance to be heard. I do not know whether it would be impracticable to provide for his being heard, but it does not seem to me right that a man who has been in the service eight, or nine or ten years should be dismissed without a hearing at all. He may *have been in a department so long that he is perhaps unable to take any other position. I would not like to be retired myself without having the opportunity of saying something about it. This should be guarded as a matter of principle, and unless it is considered impracticable by the committee I think provision should be made that the man shall have an opportunity of being heard before dismissal. His removal should also receive the approval of the deputy head.


Georges Henri Boivin: There is an amendment before the committee. It is to substitute the words ' or lack of employment" for the words " or other cause " in subsection (2) of section 2. Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the amendment?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
John Ewen Sinclair: Does this section refer to temporary as well as permanent employees?


James Alexander Calder: No, by the definition of the word " officer " temporary employees are excluded.


Samuel William Jacobs: 
Mr. MOWAT:: The only thing is that it is advisable in these matters to have an arbitrary rule. The age at which judges may retire on superannuation is fixed in the statute and this is a provision which as a rule is found to work well. I should not Ibe disposed to differ from what my hon. friend from West Elgin (Mr. Grot-hers) says as to giving notice, but it is a very painful thing to have an officer who is growing old come up and protest that he is young. There is a great tendency on the .part of a man when he gets to an advanced age to think that he is as good as he ever ,was or better, hut I think we must assume that the Civil Service Commission will act with ordinary human charity, and will use .common .sense as well, in judging this matter. I am very strongly of opinion .that it is important that the deputy heads should he made more responsible for the men under them. If you have that system and do not have any interference with the deputy head, then you will have a man who will he jealous of his department and zealous to see that it carries out its work well. If you interfere with or check him, ,or if he knows that he is to be, as it were, called to walk the carpet for any action he has taken with regard to one of the officers in his department, then he is apt to become supine in the discharge of his duties. If we can get a system under .which the deputy heads have the right to decide as to their employees you will have a much more efficient service than if the .matter were left either to the Civil Service .Commission or to members of the Cabinet. This is the practice now in all departmental stores and large concerns,-the head of the department is looked to for efficiency, and in order to get efficiency he must not be .interfered with except in extraordinary cases. I had hoped that the minister would leave the words "other cause'' in the Bill; the same remarks I have used in regard .to the Civil Service will apply there. It jLs a pity to restrict the reasons which may actuate the Civil Service, in consultation .with deputy ministers, in coming to a .conclusion that a person appointed is not doing his work well and would be better out of the service. However, as the minister has decided to leave 'that out I will pay nothing more about it.
As regards the question of advancing age iwhich has 'been called in. question, it must |be remembered that the words "failing health" do not apply in many cases. A man may be in perfect health and yet may be suffering from one of those diseases that
paake men old before their time. We all know what these are, and we know that some men at forty-five are really like men of seventy-five; it is old age which is coming on prematurely. To all appearances they are perfectly well, but they have become old men too soon, and there .are such men in the Civil Service, as we were told in evidence given before a committee of this House last year. There are some men who are young in years but are old as regards the amount of work they can do. We were told that tlheTe were men who were inefficient, and it was said that some were not doing anything, that they need not come to the office at all; but no one liked to take the responsibility of turning them out on the world. I think therefore that it would, do no harm to leave in the words "advancing age" as well ais the words "failing health" in order to make the Act efficient and to .provide for all eases which may come for adjudication before the commission in consultation with the deputy heads. In regard to the question of turning men out into the world, I think I may have something to say when we come to a succeeding clause, because the provision that is made does* not seem to me at all adequate. Some poor chap perhaps was taken on without examination, having entered the service under the system which is pleaded for to-night by my hon. friend from Muskoka (Mr. McGibboni and my hon. friend from Dufferin (Mr. Best). The man was never efficient and never could become efficient and now it is found that he is unable to do the work 'assigned him, and has not the ability, the brains, or the initiative. Yet it is an awfully harsh thing to' turn such a man out over sixty years of age without adequate means of support when he has a family dependent on him.


Samuel Hughes: 

point out that it would! be a great advantage co the Civil Service in the matter of responsibility if every adverse report made with regard to a civil servant were communicated to that servant so that he might take steps to obtain redress and prove the falsuty of the charge-if the charge were untrue- before the deputy minister or the proper authority, whoever he might be. In other words, the first principle of British justice should be observed, namely, that accused and accuser shall stand face' to face. Under this Act I ,do not see that civil servants adversely reported' upon have any chance of being heard at all. The commission may be all right in their place, but it is not well to do things in too great a hurry. II understand that there are several hundred young fellows and girls working around thlis commission at the present time; and just as in the case of. the -Purchasing Commission we know that the clerks did most of the buying, so in this case the clerks will do most of the examining, criticising, and appointing, and fixing things u,p. I am sorry that I have not as much faith in the operation of the Civil Service Commission 'as I should have, but I take the liberty of suggesting to the minister the advisability of seeing that absolute fair play shall be given to all servants upon whom reports are made. First, I would have every adverse report communicated to the civil servant the moment it was made; and, secondly, I would provide that in case a clerk or civil servant was to he removed he should have an opportunity of obtaining some appeal and an investigation before the deputy head1 or some other competent authority before his removal.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
Samuel Hughes: One point before the motion is put, if I may.
The CHAIRMAN-: The motion is undebatable. The minister might perhaps withdraw it.


Samuel Hughes: All right, I will talk to him privately on the matter.
Motion agreed to and progress reported.
MEMBERS' INDEMNITY:
PROPOSED INCREASE DISCUSSED ON MOTION FOR SUPPXjY.
On the motion that the House go again into Committe of Supply:


John Hampden Burnham: There have been, at various times
a - number of very embarrassing circumstances which have occured with regard to the business of the members themselves. A subject that we have heard! a great deal1 about is the increase in the sessional indemnity. I am told there have been a great many deputations to see the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden), the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the leader of the Farmers' Party (Mr. Crerar). I have not had .the honour of being invited to join any of these deputations so I cannot speak directly of what was accomplished, but I know that there have been many such deputations and that their visits have been frequent. I know that there is arising in this House a feeling that an .indemnity which is only worth SI,200 a session, is of no use to the bulk of the members, and is not a fair return for what is expected of them. And! when their life is considered -that is to say when it is borne in mind that they have to live in two places and practically speaking keep up two establishments, and that they are exiles from their own family circle for at least six months of the year, can it be wondered at that they find an indemnity which has the purchasing power of only $1,200 a year so inadequate as to make it quite impossible
259i
for many members to continue? I do not deny that some members have business, or positions, outside the House which would enable them to lave comfortably even if they were in actual retirement, and the sessional indemnity does not offer any great inducement to them either one way or the other. These men are largely-and! I say it of course in no invidious way-connected with the greater commercial life of Canada. They come here because the greater commercial life of Canada is intimately and, seriously affected by the laws which are passed here. They come here to watch those laws, and if possible to create and to mould .legislation-which of course is their right. But the great bulk of the people of Canada must depend upon what is called the average member. The average member is not a man of wealth; he depends perhaps upon some private business. He has to employ, when he is away from his private business, some one to look after that private business in his room and stead. As a consequence the indemnity is worth very little to him, and when its purchasing power is cut down, as it has been cut, it is almost worth nothing at all. As a consequence- the mass of the people of this country cannot expect to be well served with the indemnity at its present figure.
If it be said that in bringing this matter np I should have waited1 until there was a larger attendance I reply that the attendance is very fair. There appear to me to be about eighty or ninety members present; but we have carried through measures today involving vastly greater pecuniary expenses than the one I am discussing, we have carried through other very important measures, with half the attendance there is now. It cannot be disguiser that there is a certain amount of apathy, if not despair, on the part of ,a great many members who do not understand how they are going to make ends meet; and I say again that if the people-the mass of the people- wish their business to .he attended to, they have got to pay their public servants, as they pay their private servants, in a way that will sustain them in common decency. From one end of this country to the other, wages, salaries, every kind of remuneration have been increased. But here there has been no increase. We found in the newspapers a loyal support of the endeavour of the members of this assembly to have their salaries increased. All the leading newspapers endorsed the proposal and spoke most heartily in favour of it until the leaders got mixed up in their views on it.

And when the leaders refused to go on with it, what would the leading newspapers do but get back in their tracks as quickly as possible? So they made apologies for their former views, expressed some doubt, and gave voice to the opinion of many people in this country that this was a common "graft." Now, if my constituents think that my advocacy of an increased indemnity from -$1,200 to $2,500 is "graft," they are welcome to ask for my retirement.'
I do not propose to go with any such niggardly salary.
I found that my private business conflicted with my public business, and I found that I could not give an honourable adherence to my public duties and to all the things that arose in and concerning them, so I gave up my private business. There are many things that I have spoken on in this House somewhat frankly, somewhat boldly, and somewhat fearlessly. Why? Because I have given myself a free hand. I have had no clients who said to me, "Burnham, you talk too much about insurance. We will withdraw the business we gave you as an insurance company." I have had no people possessed of utilities which might *become public utilities, come to me and say, "You have been talking too much about the acquirement of public utilities at a rock-bottom price. You are no good to us. Therefore we will take our business away from you." I have not had people of that description saying those things to me, because if they had I would have had to make my choice between being loyal to the public interest and helpful to my own private clients; and I am very much afraid that the public business of Canada would have suffered. I can only say that if there are many others in the same predicament as myself,
I can well understand that the public business of Canada will suffer and must suffer. Therefore the people must pay their public representatives decently or they cannot expect decent service.
The strangest thing in the world is that it is conceded by the people of Canada that ' a member of Parliament is at liberty to go home as frequently as he likes; he is at liberty to look after his private business in every way-and .give the residue of his time to public business. That, of course, is a perfect fhrce, and until the people of this country learn that the business of this Parliament is of the utmost value to them economically, politically, historically, socially, morally, - and even religiously- until they have grasped that simple pro-

position there will toe unrest in the country, there will be groaning in the country, there will be aspersions cast upon the members of this House, and there will be dissatisfaction all round.
Now, I can say that 95 per cent of the members of this House demand an increase of this indemnity.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


John Hampden Burnham: Are we going to suppose that the member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) that the member for Maisonnevue (Mr. Lemieux), that the member for Shelburne and Queen's (M^. Fielding), that the member for Beauce (Mr. Beland), that the member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe), that the member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark), are not worth any more than $1,200 a year to this country? I wish to say that the member for Maisonneuve has spoken to me in the strongest possible way in favour of an increased indemnity, and he told me that if he were in the House when the question came up he would speak strongly in support of it. I cannot say about the member for Shelburne and Queen's because I have never had a word with him on the subject. But the member for Quebec East-who is unfortunately away just now-told me that he would speak in favour of an increased indemnity, that it was absolutely necessary; and he seemed to be very much stirred about it. The hon. gentleman who has just come in, the member for Four RiveTS-[DOT] ,


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Hampden Burnham: Pardon me, the member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) is strongly in favour of an increased indemnity,-and he is a man who is not afraid to say what he thinks. He has a great deal of business to attend to. He knows what he is talking about, and he knows that $1,200 a year, the annual value of our indemnity, is an insult and not a remuneration. The member for Red Deer has spoken to me on the subject with very considerable heat, and he has told me that he would at the first possible occasion speak in favour of an increased indemnity to the best of his ability. He thinks that the remuneration as it is now is an impossibility. I know a great many other members on this side who no doubt will voice their own opinions.
But, as somebody said, there has been a nigger in the fence. Why is it that the leaders have not been able to get together and decide this, question? One day the rumour going around this House would be

that the Prime Minister was "all right"- originally he was against it; that the leader of the Oposition had been persuaded to look leniently upon this, in view of the fact that he himself gets a very respectable salary,-and I am very glad he does. Many members of the Farmers.' party have spoken to me strongly in favour of this proposition, and I understand that not less than seventy-five per cent of them are strongly in favour of the increase of this indemnity. I am sure, as I said before, that ninety-five per cent of the members of this House, from explanations that are being made, are in favour of the suggested increase.
I am making this introduction of the matter to-night because I feel- that there has rested upon the members of this House an odium which should be removed by an explanation to the public of the cause; and it cannot be removed by such an explanation because it is founded upon an absolute necessity. None of us are beggars. We do not want to beg, nor do we want to grab, but we have reached this stage that, as. I say, we cannot keep up that little station- in life which a public servant is required to keep up, for he has got to be decent in his little subscriptions and things of that sort, and he has got to live in two or three places at once-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Hampden Burnham: Well, he has got to take various journeys on the public business, and he. has got to pay for those journeys out of his own pocket, except in so far as transportation is concerned. To my disgust and annoyance I have seen it stated in the papers that members have franking privileges. So they have on public business. And in Heaven's name, do you suppose we pay postage on the public business? We carry our own postal matter. It is on the public business that we have the franking privilege, and it is natural to suppose that the public business would be franked. But if we are not to give ourselves that privilege, if the public will not accord to us that privilege, and we have got to pay our own postage, then I can only say that there will be a great decrease in the number of letters sent. The public will not get the satisfaction, the instantaneous response, that they get now. Loads of letters come here which are franked by the people who send them; for at the present time any one who writes to a member of Parliament may send the letter without a stamp. Bet the newspapers and the public not forget, when they are
casting aspersions upon us in connection with our having the franking privilege, that the whole public have the right to frank letters which they send to members of the Senate and the House of Commons or to public officers and departments. During the session is the only time that members of Parliament have the franking privilege, though they have a great deal of public business to do when they are at home; they are expected to answer all sorts of little queries and to give the utmost satisfaction to their constituents and to any other people who choose to consult them.
Now, let me recur to this fact: it is up to the three leaders to say whether or not they are in favour of an increase of indemnity; to say "No, we will not," or "Yes, we will,"-in any event, to stop this running to and fro and the circulation of rumours one way or the other, which, in my opinion-and I know that a great many other people feel the same way-is entirely beneath the dignity of common, ordinary men, let alone members of Parliament or any other people engaged in public business. I am strongly in favour, therefore, of the increasing of the indemnity up to that point where it was when we accepted it, namely, $2,600. It is now only $1,200, so that $1,300 would be the difference. Wherever 1 have gone in the country I have heard all sensible men say that they wondered how we continued at the very small salary that we got. It is different with the ministers. They have large pay, and large responsibilities from which they can shrink; we have small pay, and large responsibilities from which we cannot shrink. We have to eat just as much nourishing food; we have to wear just as decent clothes, as the ministers; ' consequently we must really be considered to be on a level with those people rwho receive large salaries. For example, I am credibly informed that the leader of the Farmers' Party is in receipt of no less a salary, outside this House, than $15,000 a year.' Many men in this House are highly paid, for doing .what? Doing nothing? Certainly not. They are dividing their time between the business of this House and their private interests. Now, that is all very well; it is allowed by the constitution; it is allowed by the law; it is allowed by the public. But the fundamental position which we ought to take in this regard must be understood, namely, that men who devote their energies to the interests of the public should be perfectly free to have laws brought up, discussed, passed and put upon the statute book in an untrammelled

way in the best interests of the public. If they have to depend upon something else in order to eke out their livelihood, how can this possibly be done? Once more, therefore, I appeal to the various leaders,- to the Prime Minister; to the leadef of the Opposition; to the leader of the farmers' Party-to say whether they are going to leave us in the predicament that we are in just now, where we are the envy of neither the gods nor man, or whether they are going to do the fair thing by us under the circumstances. Everybody else has received an increase; surely the poor member of Parliament should receive the same.
Mr. ALPHONSE VERVILLE (St. Denis); Mr. Speaker this question of increased indemnity came before the House some years ago; it was brought up, I believe by the member for Bonavemture (Mt. Marcil). I supported his contention at that time, and I have since had no reason to change my mind. There are many reasons why the indemnity of members of Parliament should he increased. The depreciation in the value of money and its effect upon the indemnity we are now receiving has been ably put forth by my hon. friend from Peterborough (Mr. Burnham). When this question came up previously I was in a different position from that an which I find myself to-day. My only income then was my indemnity as a member of Parliament, and I knew just what it meant to make both ends meet each year on that indemnity. Since then I have been more fortunate. It may be said that for that reason I should not speak in favour of an increased indemnity, but on the contrary that is really the reason why I do * speak in favour of it. When I hear members around the corridors say that they are .afraid they will not be re-elected if they vote for an increase in indemnity, I cannot help feeling that these hon. gentlemen ought not to be in the House if that is the view they take.
It has been pointed out that many mechanics are earning more than members of Parliament. A bricklayer or other mechanic who is at all lucky in his activities throughout the year earns more than a member of the House. Moreover, he is at home every day, and he does not have to keep up two residences. But there is another point. Mention has been made of farmers and business men in the House, but there is another class that should be considered. All hon. members will agree that the labour element should be represented in Parliament, but it is impossible for a labour man

to come here and live honestly on ,$2,500 a year. Accordingly, we are debarring from representation in this House a certain class of the population whose right to be represented here is fully recognized. They can earn more at their trade than they can by coming here; they have to keep up their families, and knowing that, they say: "Well, if I am elected to Parliament I cannot return to my work when the session is over; I must assume the obligations attaching to the office of a member of Parliament; I must meet demands which are made for contributions to various causes, and so on. "Where is he to get the money to do that? If, then, we agree 'that all classes in the community should be represented for the benefit of the country at large, we must make the representation of these classes possible. I am not going to speak for the business men; there are many business men in this House and they can speak for themselves,-though I suppose there are many business men here who will not speak because they are afraid their electors will not be satisfied. But I do not believe that the sensible people in any electoral division will begrudge an increase in indemnity to members of the House. The farmers surely will not do it; Why should they? When they sell their goods in the market those goods demand a certain price, and we have to pay it or do without the goods. I do not begrudge the farmers the high prices they are getting for their products. If it is urged that the cost of production is greater, it is also true that the cost of living to the member of Parliament has largely increased. As I say, I was strongly in favour of an increase in indemnity some years ago when I was more in need of it than I am to-day,-though my position a year or two from now may be the same as it was. But if there are hon. members, as I feel sure 'there are, who do not really need an increase in indemnity, they should not do anything to withhold it from those who find an increase absolutely necessary in order that they may maintain their families and at the same time be of some service to the country. That is the reason why I am supporting this proposal, and I hope it will be supported by all members who are anxious to accept the money. The other day I saw the statement that some member in this House-I believe it was the hon. member for Prescott (Mr. Broulx)- poses as a patriot.


John Hampden Burnham: He is away on private business.


Mr. VERVILLE:: All that those who are such patriots have to -do is to let the money lie and not draw it. Patriots! I should like to see the hon. member who, if he were granted this increased indemnity, would not take it. Let us be frank about the matter. Every member of this House is anxious to have it, but some are perhaps afraid to stand up and speak in favour of the increase. I am not; I am willing to face the music and face the people. I know the people whom I represent are going to say, as they have always said in the past: We want to give a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. And when the indemnity of a member has come down lower than the wage of some mechanics, the very mechanics themselves say: " You are a lot of cheap guys." There is all the more reason why we should be granted this increased indemnity when the labour members in the Provincial Legislature of Ontario were in favour of it. Do you suppose they are going to be afraid to face their electors at the next election? Not by any means. These are some of my reasons-and there are many others which I do not need to occupy the time of the House in statpig-why I am strongly in favour of an increased indemnity. If the Government bring in a measure of this kind, I will hold up both hands for it.
Mr. JACQUES BUREAU (Three Rivers); Mr. Speaker, last Saturday while we were discussing the increase of salaries of judges, the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) was in his seat and I made an appeal to him, stating that he should increase the indemnities of members of Parliament. The last words of my remarks were these:
To make my point clear beyond the possibility of doubt and in order not to leave any ambiguity-because people have been afraid to talk about it-I for one declare that in my opinion the indemnity paid to the members of this Parliament should be increased.
I repeat the same thing, and as has been said by the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Verville), I am willing to face the music and face the people. I would rather stand up on the platform and say that I had voted, and asked for, and counselled, an increased indemnity than say the contrary. Conditions have changed in this country, and as the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Burnham) so well said just now, we have here two homes. We have double obligations. During the session we belong to Ottawa, and there is not a week- and I may say this happens sometimes two
or three times a week-but we are besieged in the corridors, in our offices, in all parts of the building, to subscribe to very worthy objects, to charitable objects and we often cannot very well afford to decLine. Not only during sessions, but outside of sessions in your home also, you have to contribute to various demands of this kind that are made upon you. An indemnity of $2,500 is very poor remuneration for the kind of work we are called upon to do here.
It has been stated that ordinary bricklayers -I think that is the example that was used -could earn that much. Certainly, they can, and far more. Bricklayers in the town in which I live and which I have the honour to represent in Parliament are paid $1 an hour, and that is far more than members of Parliament are paid here. To use the same argument as that used by the hon. member for Peterborough West, I do not think there is any disparagement in stating that in the position we occupy we believe we are worth more to the country than $2,500 a year. Speaking for myself, I consider I am worth more than that to Parliament.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Mr. BUREAU:: I do not say that as a
boast. The same thing applies to all my hon. friends around me and opposite me who abandon their business and devote their time for about half a year in Ottawa, for what? After all, we may have our differences of opinion, but we have one common aim. Whether we sit at your right, or at your left, Mr. Speaker, we want this country to go ahead and be prosperous, and if we come here and devote our time as we do, our aim is to try to help the country go ahead and be worthy of its future.
If an expression of opinion coming from the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) would have any weight to convince hon. members, and especially those who face me, who do not seem to 'be anxious to express their views', I may say foT and on his behalf ithat he entirely shares my views, and1 if he were here, he would not hesitate fox one minute to island up and supplement what I am saying by stating that he also takes the some position. There is no use arguing-.the question is : Do the members of the House of Commons of Canada want an increase of indemnity or do they not? I do not care what comments may be made in regard to what I say. I aim, sincere when I ask for this increased indemnity and if I were not

I would not ask for it. If it is given, I do not care what comments are made on either side, I aim going to keep it and to uise it. I do not think I can add anything further to make my position clearer in the matter. I ask the Government to increase the indemnities, of imemibers- of Parliament, and I shall take any share of the responsibility. This is not a .political question; this is an individual question. This is not a party question, and there is not an bon. member who is not willing to say: If the increase in the indemnity is granted, (because iit is a demand made by a majority of the members, I shall not use the fact that another has- pleaded or that I have abstained, to try to beat him or to try to have the people vote against him. I, for my part, will never do that, because I do not consider that this is a question of Liberals, Unionists, Tories or Farmers'; it is a question that affects every member of this House. We have enough people knocking us; if we do not look out for ourselves, believe me, other people will not look our for us.


Henry Arthur Mackie: 
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have been waiting
until my right hon. friend the Prime Minister was in his seat before participating in this debate, as I did not wish to say what I now desire to without saying it to him in the presence of hon. members of the House. I am obliged to my hon. friend from West Peterborough (Mr. 'Burnham) for having brought up this subject of the indemnity, if for no other reason than that it gives me an opportunity to refer to a report which I see in the Montreal Gazette of to-day, and which purports to be the report of a caucus which was held yesterday by members of the party opposite. Hon. gentlemen opposite will know whether or not the report is *correct, and my right hon. friend the Prime Minister will know whether or not he has been correctly reported. The report is headed " Belief Grows that Premier will Remain -Right to Leadership will not be Challenged-Another Caucus Called-Final Decision on National Policy will then be Made." The report contains a paragraph with reference to the indemnity, headed "No Indemnity Increase." It reads as follows :
Sir Robert informed the caucus that he had been in conference with Hon. W. T., Mackenzie King and Hon. T. A. Crerar on the question of increased salaries for judges, Cabinet Ministers and parliamentary representatives. They had agreed on raising the salaries of the first two, but neither of the Opposition leaders would agree to support in Parliament the third proposal. Hon. Mr. King admitted that many of his supporters favoured an increase in the indemnity, but he reserved the right to take any position he desired if the question came up in Parliament. Hon. T. A. Crerar said that he and his party would oppose an increase. Sir Robert then stated to the caucus that he would not be a party to giving Hon. Mr. King and his supporters both political glory and financial reward on such an issue. His position was endorsed by the caucus.
I am prepared to leave to hon. gentlemen opposite and to my right hon. friend to say whether that report is a correct statement of what took place yesterday. If it is a correct statement, I have only this to say:	It would disclose that my right
hon. friend the Prime Minister had spoken to me on the subject of this indemnity. If I am at liberty to say that he did so, I should like to say that he did, but in speaking to me my right hon. friend said he wished to speak in the utmost confidence, and I regarded the conversation that I had with him as a confidential conversation. I think my right hon. friend had every reason to believe that it was such. If it was a confidential conversation, I will leave it
to hon. gentlemen opposite to say whether or not in their opinion what purported to be the substance of that conversation should have been disclosed to a party caucus, when I myself was necessarily not present to hear the particular representations made with reference to what I had said.
Further, I would say that, according to this report, the Prime Minister gave to his supporters in the House and to this Parliament and to the country what purports to ,be the position of myself, as leader of the .Opposition, and of the hon. member for .Marquette, (Mr. iCrerar) on this question. Did my right hon. friend tell the caucus what his own position was? Did he tell the caucus what he said to me was his position on this matter? My lips are sealed jn this respect, because I regarded, and still regard, the conversation as confidential, and I intend to hold to what I regard as .the obligations of a confidential conversation.
Apart altogether from any conversation that we had let me say that what the Prime .Minister is reported to have said as to ,what I said is quite correct. I did intimate to my right hon. friend that I thought .ninety per cent at least of hon. gentlemen ,on this side of the House felt that the question of the indemnity was an important .one from a public point of view, not from a personal, private point of view, but from a public point of view, and were jn favour of an increase, but that I did pot feel at liberty to be a party to any secret agreement on this matter, and that ,1 reserved my right to make such statement as I thought proper on the floor of Parliament, where I thought it should be discussed. I said to my right hon. friend that I had spoken with some hon. members pn this side of the House and that they lagreed with me that the matter should be discussed freely and openly on the floor of Parliament where every member could -express his opinion before his fellow-members, .and that the question should not be regarded as one of secret arrangement or secret negotiation one way or the other. In view of ,what I now see reported in the press I ;think I have no reason to doubt that I was wise in taking the stand I did in the conversation that took place. At any rate it is my view of what is the right and proper (way to deal with this matter. Why should .this question any more than any other he .made a matter of bargain between party leaders? 'This is a matter of public interest, Of public concern to every member and to the people of the country generally, and

like every other public matter, should be discussed here openly and frankly on its merits, and on its merits alone. That is the ground on "which I think this question .should be discussed and decided. I do' not pee "why in a matter of this kind the Government should not have a policy just as much as in any other matter if it is possible for the Government to have a policy ,in regard to anything.
, Let me say further that several 'hon. members on this side of Ithe House have (spoken to me of my attitude on this question. From the very start I have said to pach one of them, and I think they will bear me out, that I did not regard the question as a party matter at all, and II hoped that each member would feel free to 'Speaik his mind openly and frankly and give his opinion in an unreserved way. I do not regard the question as a party question, and I do- not think it should! be made a party issue. More than that, I should' like to say that when, some; few (days ago, we were discussing in this House the question of the duration of the session and it was suggested that we should have morning sittings in order to rush through the business of the House, I took strong exception to that method of procedure and 'Contended that the first duty of every representative of the people in Parliament was to give1 his time and thought and attention to public business; I expressed! the view that members did not come to Parliament for the purpose of getting through business in a haphazard manner,- or that it should! be neglected in order to get home as expeditiously as possible. I stated on that occasion that it was the duty of hon. members .to give intelligent attention to all matters that came before them for consideration, and that due care should be exercised in dealing with all public questions in a manner befitting the importance of those questions. In this connection I took occasion to point out what seemed to me to' be the point of view from which this question of indemnity should) be approached, and if hon. members desire to see what I siaid on that occasion they will find! my remarks recorded in Hansard) of May 27, 1920. If the matter comes- up in the form of a. discussion in this House in which- the merits have to be argued- one way or the other, I am -quite prepared -to- give my views along with other hon. members. (I am prepared to discuss the question on its merits, and I am not afraid to take full responsibility in regard -to whatever I may have to say. But I do refuse-to use a 
popular expression-to be made the goat ini a matter of this kind through entering into any secret agreement whereby, if it should) suit th-e Government to say that this thing cannot be done because the leader of the Opposition is opposed! to it, I shall be held responsible for the fact that the Government has no policy; or, on the other hand, should it please- the Government to say -that the leader of the Opposition having favoured it, they are granting the proposal', I shall be held accountable for their action in the matter. Let me say, 'Mr. Speaker, I am. ready to take responsibility for a 'Government policy if hon. gentlemen opposite are not; but so long as they are members of the Government it is. their duty -to take that responsibility and my duty to assume the responsibility which devolves upon me on this side of the House.
Rt. Hon. .Sir ROBERT BORDEN (Prime Minister): I should be very sorry to have my hon. friend think that I had violated any confidence which he had reposed in me, but I am not going to affirm or deny any rumour in the press as to what took place in caucus. My hon. friend regarded my conversation with him as confidential. I think it is pretty well understood among hon. members in this House-at least, it ought to he understood-that discussion in caucus is also confidential. -My hon. friend seems to imagine that I desired to enter into some secret agreement with him. I did not so desire; I do not desire to enter into any secret agreement with him. But every one familiar with what has been the practice in this House in the past is aware that in matters of this kind, which are matters rather for Parliament itself than for the Government, it has been customary for the -leaders on -one side and on the other to confer with each other. I had an experience of something like ten and a half years in Opposition, and during that time, on one occasion at least-I am not sure whether on more than one occasion, but certainly on one occasion-there was an increase in the indemnity; and I perfectly well remember that on that particular occasion the then leader of the Government invited an expression of my views before the measure was introduced into the House. More than that, I did not follow the example of my ti-on. friend; I told the then Prime Minister what my views were, and I carried out those views wihen the measure came up in Parliament. Now, if my hon. friend thinks that he is deserving of any sympathy or of any

congratulation in respect of the difference between the one case and the other, why, so far as I am concerned, he is entirely welcome to it. The hon. gentleman has not yet given the House hie opinion on the subject. He has reserved to himself the right to tell us what his views are at some future date. Well, I am disposed, notwithstanding his unwillingness in that regard, to tell the House something about my own views. I shall proceed to do so. My hon. friend refers to the necessity of a policy on the part of the 'Government in this'matter and to the lack of any such necessity on his part. May I observe that he as well as myself occupies in this House an official position which is recognized by Statute.
So far as I am concerned, the eubject has been mentioned to me by members of Parliament, and considerations have been placed before me-I do not know whether they have been alluded to in the debate this evening-setting forth the amount of indemnity which under the law of the United States is accorded to members of Congress. Representations have been made with regard to the recent increase of indemnity in the 'Commonwealth of Australia, and reference has been made to recent increases of indemnity in some of the provinces of Canada. Unfortunately, I was detained by other matters in the earlier stage of this debate, and I do not know whether or not these matters have been brought to the attention of the House.
Same hon. MEMBERS: No.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, I did not anticipate that this debate would be precipitated and I have not at hand the facts in regard to those matters. However, I understand that in the United States members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives receive an indemnity of $7,500, and in addition to that they have an allowance of $1,500 a year as a provision for .a secretary.


An hon. MEMBER:: The allowance is


Robert Laird Borden: 
Some hon. MEMBERS:: That is right.


Robert Laird Borden: In the province of .Saskatchewan the indemnity has recently been raised from $1,500 to $1,800; in the
province o.f Alberta it has been raised from $1,500 to $2,000; and in the province of Quebec there nas been an increase this year from $1,500 to $2,000. In 1905 the indemnity of members of this House was increased from $1,500 to $2,500, and upon that occasion the then leader of the Government invited my opinion before the measure was introduced into 'Parliament. We believed then that we were fixing the indemnity at so liberal an amount that there would be no occasion in the lifetime of any of us to suggest an increase. But conditions have changed very much since that time. Every hon. gentleman in the House is conscious of that; and I am perfectly well aware that the duty of representing a constituency in this Parliament involves a very considerable financial sacrifice upon many hon. members. I will not say upon all, because There are some who, fortunately, are living so near Ottawa that the ordinary pursuit of their business avocations is not interrupted to nearly the same extent as is the case with members from the western provinces, and members from distant parts of Ontario, and from the Maritime Provinces. It would be impossible in respect to a matter so complicated, to attempt to do exact and complete justice in every instance. One hon. member of this House recently told me that when he came to this Parliament he was obliged to engage a professional man for the purpose of attending to his business and to pay him a salary of $5,000 a year. He further said that within the past two years he has been obliged to increase that salary to $7,000. Other illustrations of a like character have been brought to my attention. Now I say at once and unreservedly, to my hon. friend who leads the Opposition that I think the indemnity of members in this House is too low unuder present conditions.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend has not given his opinion upon that .subject as yet. Let me, however, submit this further consideration as to which I expressed an opinion to hon. gentlemen who spoke to me some time ago on this subject; and T have not varied from that view, I think, on any occasion in speaking to any member of this House: I pointed out to them that in my opinion there was a very grave question indeed as to whether it would be expedient, at this juncture in the history of our country, to increase the indemnity, and for reasons which seemed to

me very obvious. Public opinion in this country at the present time is somewhat unsettled. (Conditions are not quite normal and there is some unrest. We, as a Government and as a Parliament, are inviting economy and practising it as far as we can to the extent that the public necessities will permit. We have had demands of a very extraordinary character made upon us by what I believe is a small minority of the soldiers who have returned from the Front. We have declined to entertain those claims, and we have cut down the public appropriations in many parts of the country to the very lowest limits that could be devised.-It is our duty to reflect and to consider whether, under those circumstances, Parliament and the members of Parliament would be doing justice to the situation and would be doing justice to themselves if they proceeded at this session to pledge the public exchequer to the very considerable sums that would be involved in an increase of the indemnity to the amount suggested. The amount suggested to me was an increase to the sum of $4,000 or, as urged by some, to $5,000.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


An hon. MEMBER:: 
Robert Laird Borden: Now I am perfectly willing to have my views known in this regard. They may be summed up in these words: First, that I think in justice to a majority of the members of this House the indemnity ought to be increased, and that it is1 too low at the present time. But on the other hand -there is according to my. mind-and I commend this consideration to hon>. members on both sides1-a very grave and serious doubt whether it would be in the public interest, whether it would be in the interest of parliamentary institutions, whether it would be in the interest of hon. members themselves, to press for such- an, indemnity at this- session of Parliament.


John Hampden Burnham: May I ask the Prime Minister if -he thinks that should apply to all wage-earners and others throughout the country who have been seeking an increase in stipend?
An h-on. MEMBER:	Even to civil
servants?


Robert Laird Borden: 
William Stevens Fielding: -Several weeks -ago I was appreached by a brother member of Parliament who desired an -expression of my views on this question of indemnity which had then been referred -to on several occasions in the public pres-s. I told- my friend that there was one point upon, which II had- a very strong opinion, and that was that this indemnity should not be increased by any, arrangement that might be made-as: rumor, said it was to be made-by the leaders' of the several 'parties. I said if the question was worthy of consideration at all it should be brought up for open discussion in the frankest way on .the floor of Parliament, and I said if it was brought up in that way I should not hesitate to express my opinion. And so, in fulfilment of what I told my friend, I will say a few words now.
There -are strong, logical grounds upon which a case could he made out ,in favour of an, increase in the indemnity. The statements made by the right hon. Prime Minister with regard to the payments- in other places with which we might reasonably make a comparison -are, as far as I know, substantially correct. 'They indicate that this question is being dealt with elsewhere, and that if we should increase the indemnity here we should not be pursuing a course different from that which has been pursued in other countries. When we consider that the purchasing power of a dollar, for almost any purpose, is today only fifty cents, there is>
force in the argument advanced by an hon. member that practically speaking the indemnity 'paid as compared with former times only -amounts to $1,250, and you can make out a strong case logically for the increase of the indemnity. But we cannot always afford- to be logical. This is a question, unfortunately, as to which

public opinion will be very sensitive, perhaps unreasonably sensitive, and the members of Parliament of Canada will be expected to set a particularly good example in these days when there is so much talk of economy and thrift. Probably many people-especially those who have not given the subject much thought-will be strongly disposed to think that .the indemnity is large enough and that we ought not increase it. 1 told my hon. Mend with whom' I was discussing the question that if it was deemed expedient to raise the indemnity, and if it was the general feeling of the House that the indemnity ought to be increased, my suggestion would be-although II thought the wiser course was to let the thing alone; and that I say now- and it was the general feeling of the House that the indemnity ought to be increased, that an increase be provided for, but that it should not take effect until the new Parliament assembled.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


William Stevens Fielding: I am not surprised to
hear some hon. members say "no, no," because my suggestion would afford no relief to them in this session, and I understand their desire that if there is to be an increase it should be made at once. Frankly, although I admit that a logical case can be made out in favour of an increased indemnity, I think we will all avoid unpleasant criticism n the country if we leave the matter alone. If there be members who doubtless feel strongly on the point-and I do not differentiate, because whatever conclusion is reached I am perfectly willing to concur in-but if there be a strong feeling that special recognition should be given for the burdens of the present session, I think that some midway increase in the neighbourhood of $500 should be given for the present session, and the remainder should be made to apply in the next Parliament.
There is nothing very logical in all that; you can make out a strong case in favour of an increased indemnity, but I am afraid that it is a case in which a great many of our fellow-countrymen would be unreasonable; and I think, take it all in all, that the wisest policy would be to let it alone. But if it be deemed wise to make isome increase, I would be prepared to take the responsibility of increasing the indemnity by $500 for the present session, and the $4,000 to take effect when the next Parliament meets.	[DOT]
The indemnity question, I should say, never arises alone, it is always I find, as now and in times past, associated with other questions. It is usually associated, for example, with the question of the judges' salaries, and I believe that the proposed '))-crease to the judges has something to do with the present movement. I desire to say in that respect that I do not think that the salaries of our judges everywhere should be increased, but in regard to the higher courts of the country I would be prepared to support an increase to the judges of a moderate amount. Another proviso-
I have said it half a dozen times, and I say it again-that irrespective of whatever may be done for the judges or for members of Parliament, I think the ministers of the Crown are entitled to higher salaries* and I would cordially support an increase to them.


Samuel Hughes: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) has referred to the agitation that might go on in the country in case this proposition were carried to increase the indemnity of members of Parliament. So far as I am concerned, girj_an<i i have been 'before the public for a considerable time-I have always favoured these agitations, because I like to have everything fought out on the platform. Many years ago when there was an agitation to reduce expenditure-I refer to the time when the Patrons of Industry, a somewhat kindred organization to our Farmer friends of the present day, the United Farmers of Ontario-that agitation in favour of economy proposed a reduction of the indemnity from $1,000, at which it them stood, to $500. I took the ground that our members of Parliament were as worthy of consideration as the American Congressmen, and I said that 'as the latter received a $5,000 indemnity and $2,500 for clerical assistance, I was ready to support any party in Parliament which would increase our sessional indemnity to $5,000 with $2;500 for clerical assistance. My colleague on my own side in the adjoining county of Ontario could not agree with me, and he wanted to reduce the indemnity to $800,-1 refer to Colonel John A. MeGillivray. Well, my majority was considerably increased, but his majority was cut down. I found it was the easiest thing in the world to convince an audience of the reasonableness of an increased indemnity. As a matter of fact, I never heard the question of reducing the indemnity

raised again in my county. After all, my experience of the public is that they are not the cheeseparing, unfair type of mortals that we all seem to think they are. On the contrary, although you will find one or two cranks here and there in the community who indulge in an awful lot of soap-box oratory,-they are of no account,-all the solid thinking people want to see their public representatives well paid. They come after their representatives for subscriptions for fairs, for baseball clubs, and for many other purposes, and they look upon their member as a source of supply for any description of public entertainment that comes along, and they are very glad to see him in a position to respond to their demands by giving him this increased indemnity.	.
So far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, I trust that if there is any little points of etiquette between the leader of the Government and the leader of the Opposition, they will sink those petty little, differences and to-morrow, after taking this matter into their serious consideration, decide to increase the indemnity to the sum of $5.000-
-Some hon. MEMBERS:	Hear, hear.


Samuel Hughes: I hope that the
leader of the Opposition-and I am sure the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) will not object- will join hands with the Prime Minister and second the resolution to increase the indemnity to $5,000. I venture to say that you won't be able to find a Grain Growers' Edge,-and certainly you will not be able to find a single Orange lodge-that will raise any objection to the increase.


Lucien Cannon: 
Edward Walter Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I rise simply to urge that no matter whether or not the indemnity to members of Parliament is increased, the remuneration to ministers certainly should be increased. For years I have thought that the remuneration to ministers is simply absurd, having regard to the position that they must maintain and the expenses to. which they are subjected. Moreover, as I said the other evening, the salaries of judges of the Supreme Court should be increased this session. I doubt whether you could get proper men to take the positions if any members of the Supreme Court were to resign or to die.
As to the indemnity to members of Parliament, so far as I am concerned I am not pressing for an increase, and have not done so. I am perfectly willing to abide by the decision of the majority in the House in the matter of indemnity. It is true that the indemnity does not pay any member, without regard to what he can earn when he is at home-that is, if he has any earning power at all. I doubt whether many members here are ahead financially at the end of the session when they come to
balance their expenses against their indemnity. I doubt whether many members are ever very much ahead in an ordinary session; when it comes to long sessions, undoubtedly they are out of pocket. You have to consider these men are here giving their time to the public business, and that many of them could earn a great deal more if they were home. But as the Prime Minister has pointed out, while expenses of members have increased materially during the last few years we are refusing to make grants to a great many other people in the country who probably need the increase as much as we do.
Now, as to our serving for patriotic purposes and all that sort of thing, in my opinion much of the talk in reference to that is hot air; I take not stock whatever in it. I believe that members are entitled to an increase in indemnity, but I suggest that instead of asking for an increase of $1,500 at once they take it more by steps; that, in accordance with the suggestion of the member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) they ask for $500 this year, and that for the next session-an hon. member says "for the next Parliament," but I say for the next session-the indemnity be increased to the extent of the amount now asked for by the bulk of the members of the House.


John Hampden Burnham: Let us hear from the Farmers' party.


Mr. THOMAS MacNUTT (Saltcoats):: Mr. Speaker, many reasons have been given why the indemnity to members of Parliament should be increased. The action taken in this respect by other legislatures in this country has been cited. I myself was a member of a local legislature when we received $500 a year. The amount was increased at one jump to $1,500, and lately, I believe, the same legislature has increased the indemnity of its members to the extent of another $300. The .people have accepted the situation, expressing the view that the increase was justified-and I do not know of any session I ever attended that lasted as long as two months. Moreover, the sessions were always held in the middle of winter, when the time could well be spared.
I think that the country could well afford to do justice to members of Parliament by materially increasing their indemnity. I am sure that no man in this House is mak-iny any money through being a representative of the people in Parliament. The

time that a member gives to the service of the public is not confined to the session; his attention is taken away from his personal .and private business between sessions. If he does his duty to his constituents, he must devote a great deal of time during the recess to keeping in touch with his electors, and in that connection there are a great many expenses. The member has his family to maintain; when he is here he cannot	attend	to	his	business,	whateverit	may	be. I am a farmer.
Although I am not young enough to do a great deal of physical work on the farm, yet I know very well that if I were at home now or had been at home earlier, many things would have gone a good deal better than they have gone. Every one of us is out of pocket to a certain extent on account of being here. Some may say: What are you doing in Ottawa ? Why do you take the j ob ? I do not know that there is very much of an argument in that. We have been given the honour of 'being selected by a majority of our constituents to represent them, and we have considered that fact more than the financial side of the iqueation. At the same time, on account of financial obligations that we all have, and more especially on account of the great increase in the cost of living which affects a member of Parliament jusit as much as any of his constituents, I think the indemnity should be increased. We did not anticipate at the time such an increase in the cost of living or many might have hesitated, although at the last election of 1917, I for one would have been willing to come down here and to give my time for nothing if necessary on that particular occasion if I could have in any wiay assisted along the line of putting every ounce of energy that Canada possessed towards the wining of that war. But the condition is somewhat different now, and I think, taking all circumstances into consideration, the indemnity .should be increased. I am prepared to support an increase in the indemnity, and also I am perfectly willing to defend it in my constituency.


Mr. MATTHEW ROBERT BLAKE (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, the matter of increased indemnity is a vital one and it is very necessary that it should he taken up in this House and discussed fully and freely. I know of no other class which is to-day working on pre-war wages than the members of this Parliament, and the indemnity that is paid in the various provincial legislatures has been increased. It 
is an old saying, "The world takes one on one's own valuation," and if we value our services as worth only $2,500, the world will be justified in saying that we are worth only that sum. The average member of Parliament, especially if he comes from the West, is suffering financial loss in being in Ottawa, and the indemnity should be increased to compensate him for that loss. I have heard many people say: Oh, the matter does not affect you; you have already increased your indemnity. There has been so much talk about the matter, and more probably this year than before, that the feeling is abroad that we have already increased our indemnity, and there has not been any unfavourable comment upon that fact. I am satisfied1 there would be very little unfavourable comment upon it and, with the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon), I am sure that an increased indemnity is in the best interest of a democratic country because, members being paid a sum commensurate with the services they are rendering, representatives of all classes of the community would toe enabled to sit as members of Parliament. The function of Parliament is to represent the views of all the people, and the people would he better represented if the indemnity were increased, and it would not be so much of a rich man's game as it is going to be if the indemnity is not increased.
I have heard some hon. members say that they will not came back to Parliament again unless the indemnity is increased, because, as the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) has stated, members of Parliament have so frequently to contribute money to various worthy and charitable objects, much more than they would have to do if they had not been elected to this position, and1 the indemnity should be increased to make allowances for drains of that description. People who have not had the experience of members of Parliament do not know the expense to which those contributions, touch the pockets of members. Probably the statement will be made that we have to remain in Ottawa only for four, or four and a half, or five months in the year. But the time of the session is not the only drain on the members' time; he must devote a'great deal of his time to the work of his constituency, especially in these critical times and times of great umest.
, This is a matter in regard to which mem-.here should be unanimous. If any member ,is so small that he thinks he will gain any Advantage in his constituency by oppos-

ing this when other members have voted in 'favour of it .and have taken the criticism, jf such should arise in this regard, and if that meniher who 'has opposed it quietly pockets it and goes home and gets on the stump, he should be disgraced and should .consider himself unfit to mingle with men ,of the class of members of Parliament. If any member is opposed to this increased indemnity, he should stand up and give ,the reasons for his position. We have broken the ice, we have started the ball rolling, so' that this is an opportune time for such a member to give his reasons, and then we would know where we are at.
Mr. ARCHIBALD BLAKE MeCOIG (Kent, Ontario): Mr. Speaker, I agree to a large extent with the statement of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Blake) that if a member is in favour of or opposed to this increased indemnity, he should state his reasons why. Personally, I believe a number of members from the western provinces put up with a great deal more hardship in attending to their duties in Parliament than do some of us members from Ontario' or Quebec. I am fortunate .enough to be able to get home quite frequently to attend to my business while .Parliament is in session. When I first heard talk of an increase in sessional indemnity, I felt it was not a lit and proper time to advocate or to accept any such increase, for different reasons. One reason .was that the Government had been contending, when they bad been cutting out Estimates for public works, that money ,was too scarce. We have just recently had the Budget brought down by the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), by which .all necessaries of life are going to be taxed, .and we are going to raise money from the plain people of this country in a way that money has never been raised before. Under the circumstances, if we were to sit .still in out seats and say to1 the Government by our silence that we are going to .support them if they bring in an increased indemnity, that would be unfair to the Government and to our constituents, and we would be dishonest with ourselves to a .large extent. I, therefore, wish to say that I am not in favour of an increased indemnity at this time, not because I feel .that members of Parliament do not deserve .more money for the services they render, ,but because I helieve the country is not in a financial 'condition to afford it, .and I .believe public opinion will not stand for it. If the Prime Minister has an idea 260
that we should economize and retrench, we should encourage him. I believe every hon. member who is of the same opinion, should allow the Government to know just the position he takes and not have the Government deceived in any way, shape or form.
Mr. ROBERT H. HALBERT (Ontario North): Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak to-night on this subject; but to make my remarks, when the Bill was introduced, but owing to the remarks of the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Blake), I made up my mind to say a few words. As a new member, I do not know what the expenses may 'be, I am not in a very good position to judge how the indemnity pays a member for what he has to do. However, I agree with the Prime Minister that this is not an opportune time to raise the indemnity,, owng to the financial position of the country and to the fact that we have refused grants that have been requested by the returned soldiers. There is this point, however. Last night there was put-through a measure for the guaranteeing of money which was opposed very strongly but the Bill was carried, and if the majority of the House thinks this should be done on this question they have that same privilege. As to making any election capital out of this question I do not think there is any to be made. I think hon. members who have sat in this House know exactly what it costs them to stay in Ottawa and how they should be indemnified before the last election. It has been said that the western members are more out of pocket than the Ontario members. That is true. They are farther away from home and they cannot keep an eye over their affairs. As this question has come up I just wish to express my opinion on it. I repeat, I do not think this is an opportune time to increase the indemnity.


John Wesley Edwards: I was first honoured with a seat in this House in 1908. At that time the indemnity was $2,500. I use the word "indemnity" advisedly in applying it to the amount of remuneration paid to the members at that time. I have a right to assume that the people of the constituency I have the honour to represent consider that I have given them good value foT the money paid to me, because in 1911 they again returned me to this House with double the majority I. had on the former occasion. The indemnity paid to the members of this House in 1911 was the same as before, and again I use



the word "indemnity" advisedly. It was then an indemnity. We continued to receive an indemnity of $2,500 for some years after 1911. But now, for some years past, we have not received an indemnity of $2,500. We have not received an indemnity at all; we have received a salary. What is the meaning of the word "indemnity"? What does the word imply? When I entered into the contract with the people of my constituency to come down here and do business for them I was to receive an amount of money that would recompense me for the losses I sustained-loss of time, and so forth. I had to use the money I received for my services to pay for my food and lodging and clothes, and so on. I have a right to assume that if the people of my constituency considered my services were worth $2,500 then-what $2,500 would purchase for me then-they consider that my services to-day are worth just as much in purchasing power. Now it is an undoubted fact that the remuneration or salary received at present is not on the basis of what we received in years gone by, because it will not purchase that amount. It will not recompense me to the extent of more than 50 per cent of what it did formerly.
It has been argued by some that we, as members of this House, should not take any step towards increasing the amount which is paid to us. Logically, I think we would be playing fair with our constituents if we said to them: You agreed to giVe us a certain amount of money when the cost of living was at a certain figure. I do not think the people could find much fault with us if we asked them to keep faith with us and give us an amount of money which would meet the conditions that obtain at the present time. We have to play fair with the people. Some of us come to this House and! do play fair with !the people. Some of us come to this House day after day, and week after week, and session after session. We are in our places attending to the business of the country. We are playing fair with the people and we have a right to ask the people to play fair with us. But there are members whose names are on the roll as members of this House who are never seen here from one week's end to another, who do not come within the walls of this Chamber from one month's end to another. We who do come here are doing, not only the business of our own constituents but the business which these members ought to be doing. Why are they not present? Look over the list and see who are persistently absent
[Mr. .Edwards.}
from their places in this House. Who are they? Not the men in the humbler walks of life. Not men, like myself, of limited means. We are attending to our duties in this House and sacrificing dollars every day by doing it. You will find that for years back the men who have been absenting themselves from this House day after day are men of great wealth, who have found it more to their interest to stay at home and attend to their own business, because it puts $100 in their pockets for every dollar they get here of so-called indemnity. That is why they are absent from this House. I feel very strongly on this question. The press of this country-and there never was a time when we had less respect from the press of Canada than we have today-have repeatedly called attention to the small attendance of members in this House. How many times has the press of this country called attention to those who were absent, to the wealthy men who are absenting themselves from this House day after day and week after week and month after month? I have not seen any mention of them by the press of this country. The press has too great an interest with these big moneyed men to say anything against them, or to hurt their feelings. They are never mentioned in the press. The press calls attention to the members who are here regularly, who sit here, as we did this morning until three o'clock attending not only to our own duties but to the duties of these wealthy gentlemen who find it to their interest to remain at home attending to their private affairs rather than to the business of the country. I say that we who have attended to our duties in this House have played fair with 'the people, and I iwould have no hesitation in going to the people and asking them to play fair with me.
There is a great deal to be said for the position taken by the Prime Minister. After all, as the Prime Minister of this country, he is the man who would be held responsible, and not the leader of the Opposition or the leader of the Third party group across the way. There is no doubt in anybody's mind that the cost of living has increased for us as it has for everybody else. We as members of this House, have recognized the increased cost of living by a bonus to the members of the Civil Service. We recognized it last year in dealing with the soldier problem 'by giving a bonus of 20 per cent on the basic amount granted to them earlier. This year we recognized it again, and the House has just

approved legislation increasing that bonus from 20 to 50 per cent. Why have we done this? Because we recognize that the cost of living has increased to these people and that we have to make provision accordingly. We know that the figure we originally set as a fair amount to pay is equivalent only to a fraction of that amount today, because the dollar does not get them one hundred cents worth of value. We have recognized this with regard to everybody hut ourselves, why should we hesitate to ask the public to recognize it in our case? So far as J am concerned, if the indemnity is increased, and if later on conditions come back to normal, I am willing to go back to the old' basis. We have acted on this principle in other matters; we have been guided by it in dealing with the civil servants. We have given them a bonus. What for? Why did we not give them instead of a bonus an addition of twenty per cent or ten per cent to their salaries? The reason is that if conditions in the country got back to normal then the bonus would be dispensed with. We can surely be consistent and apply that principle to ourselves, and I do not see why we should have anything to apologize for or why we should fear to meet our constituents if we adopted the same system so far as we ourselves are concerned. If the Government did not see fit to fix ,an increased indemnity this session, I can see nothing wrong in their carrying out the principle we have adopted in regard to others and making a special grant in recognition of the higher cost of living to us for this session. I see no objection to that proposal, and I am prepared to back it up before my constituents or in any other part of the country. 1
Now, Mr. Speaker, I realize the fact that there are men in this House who may have conscientious scruples against an increased indemnity. There may be those who think that this is an inopportune time and all that sort of thing, and that, as one hon. gentleman says, we cannot go on with public works in this country because of the scarcity of money. Well, Sir, I did not understand when I came to Ottawa that it was part of my duty or privilege to have the Government take money out of my pocket to build public works in the country. I never regarded that as being part of the duties of a member of Parliament. I understood as a medical man after having entered into politics that it was part of my political duties to attend the .surrounding public free of charge. That, of course, went into the 2604
political game; but I did not know that I had to go down into my pocket, or that the Government had a right to expect that I should do so, in order to help build public works in the Dominion. Speaking for myself J must frankly confess that I do not subscribe to any such doctrine. There is another phase of the matter upon which I desire to touch while I am on my feet. There are certain things which we have a right to take into consideration .as members of this House. The cost of living has increased for us as it has for everybody else, but in addition to that we have other expenses, some of which have been alluded to. 'There are the expenses of running elections


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.
iMr. EDWARDS: I have a reason for referring to that, and I shall make that reason plain before I get through. That is part of the expenses connected with our position here. There has always been one thing which has come up in connection with any question of increased indemnity, and that is, that whatever increase is granted to members of the House of Commons must of necessity be granted to senators. I want to say as one member of the House who has the utmost respect for the Senate, for their ability and all that sort of thing, that in my humble judgment it would not be a fair proposition at all, if the Government saw fit to increase the indemnity of the House of 'Commons, to make it apply equally to the Senate and I trust that if there are any senators within the sound of my voice, they will, when they come to discuss this matter, show a disposition to fair play. I need not advance reasons which are patent to every hon. gentleman as to why the indemnity of a senator should not be the same as that of a member of the House of Commons. There are many reasons which I could advance but they are so palpable to every .one-and they will be apparent to any senators who may be sitting in the gallery-that it would be unnecessary for me to allude to them. If I were fixing the amount myself I would make a comparison like this: If the Government saw fit to increase the indemnity of the House of 'Commons to say $4,000 I would suggest an increase for the Senate to $3,000.


Mr. FINLEY:: Too much.


John Wesley Edwards: Well, so far as that is concerned I will say nothing. I do not think I have ever been afraid to

express my views on the floor of the House. Whether I have expressed them plainly or not I will not say, hut I do not think that any one will charge me with having been afraid to state my mind, and I am not going to refrain from saying on the floor of the House what I would be willing to say to my electors. That is the position I take. I know that since I entered this House I have endeavoured honestly and conscientiously to do my duty by the people who sent me to Parliament.
I believe that this is true of most hon. gentlemen in this House. There are some members of Parliament who have not discharged their duties with this degree ot fidelity but who have found it to their interest financially to absent themselves from the House and attend to their own private business, fo-r no other reason under the canopy of Heaven than there was more money in their being absent from the House. I want to say that against that I protest as strongly as I can. I have played the game fairly with my people.
I believe I have given the people of my constituency fair service and have discharged the duties which belong to the honour that they have conferred upon me. So long as I remain a member of the House I shall continue to do so as conscientiously and as ably as I can, and I would have no hesitation in going to the people of my constituency and asking them to play the game fairly with me. And I know what their answer would be if I did that. That is all I have to say in this matter. I said a moment ago, IMr. Speaker, and with your permission T repeat now, that if the Government does not see its way clear at this time, for certain reasons which will occur to many, why a definite and fixed increase in the indemnity should be made, we can at least advance very strong, and reasonable, and just grounds to support the contention that some consideration should be given to members for this session in view of the increased oost of living.


Onésiphore Turgeon: As I am one of the members who have been very assidious in their attendance in this House, as the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) well knows, I am sure that he does not place me in the category of those who have been derelict in their duty and who have sacrificed the public welfare to their private interests. I think I am fairly well qualified to express an opinion on this question, because I know pretty well what is the [Mr. Edwards.!
feeling of the public, in my part of the country at any rate, in regard to the proposal we are now considering; and I may inform my hon. friend and the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) that so far as I can gather, the public mind to-day is well prepared for the suggestion that there should be an increased indemnity to members of Parliament. The public are prepared to concede that members of Parliament should receive a larger indemnity than they have been drawing for the last fifteen years, because conditions to-day are not to be compared to those that existed when the indemnity was last increased. Now, wTe are a democratic country. We recently fought for democracy, and it has been well said by an hon. member who preceded me that if we do not give to the representatives of the people a sufficient means to allow them to meet the necessary expenses to which they are put we shall find that the representation of the people will fall to the lot of those people who possess the wealth of -the country, as happened at a certain periodl in Great Britain. We do not want such a condition to prevail in Canada in the future, and therefore I have no hesitation in saying that I am willing to take the responsibility of supporting an increase in the indemnity. Speaking personally I am sure my constituents will not object to such a course on my part, If repeated expressions of confidence during five or six elections- when I was returned by immense majorities and on the last occasion had the honour of election by acclamation-indicate the extent pf popular approval of my course I think they can be regarded as showing that my constituents believe that the member for Gloucester has devoted his attention not only to the interests of hie own county but to the interests of the country at large in every possible way. Of course some of us are not endowed with the same ability as others. All of us are not of the same *calibre as the Prime Minister, the leader of the Opposition or the members for Gaspe, (Mr. Lemieux) Bonaventure, (Mr. Marcil) East Quebec (Mr. Lapointe) or my hon. friend from Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau), who is looking at me with an interrogative glance at the present time. But in the matter of indemnity the people would have no hesitation in declaring that all "should be treated alike. And the people themselves would; be the gainers to this extent: That if some of the popular representatives have not at all times exercised their utmost ability in the public interest they will feel

impelled to do so from this time forward. The addition to the public expenditure which will result from an increase in the indemnity will not be deemed of very much importance when we recollect that we are talking in terms- of millions these days. Moreover, the public do not measure the expenditure of the country from what is paid to members an the shape of indemnity. Rather do they lay stress upon the abolition of unnecessary expenditures. Therefore I for one believe that an increase of the indemnity will be regarded by the people at large as entirely justifiable. Only two months ago in the New Brunswick legislature the indemnity of members which had stood for the last twenty years at $500, was doubled and no word of criticism has been heard1 from the press on either side of politics with respect to it. As we have been told to-night the indemnity to members in every other legislature has been increased in the last year or two and in no province has any criticism been made with respect to that increase. I believe we should try to establish an indemnity that would be in accordance with the importance of the nation itself. The United States pays its popular representatives in accordance with their high status and -their important duties. The same thing is done in France. What inducement is there to any young student, or any young man of promise, to enter the public life of this country? What opportunity is there for him to honestly and deservedly earn a reputation for himself by devoting his service and his ability to the public weal, if an adequate living is not guaranteed to him? As to the amount of indemnity that should be fixed I know that the conditions of the country are not favourable to an undue increase. Notwithstanding the present situation, however, we have been increasing the salaries of the employees in the public service, and large business corporations have done likewise in the case of the men in their employ. I do not think we should tinker with this question and say we will take a few dollars this year and a few dollars next year. Let us settle the matter on a -basis that will be honourable and just. -If $5,000 is out of the question let an amount be adopted which will not be looked upon as the mere grabbing of a few dollars to compensate members merely for the work of the session. We may expect hereafter that the sessions wil-l be of longer duration. Problems are arising which will demand careful thought and which it will not he possible to settle
i,n any easy or expeditious fashion. Those members who come from far distant points have practically to abandon their business or profession altogether in order to devote themselves to the interests of their constituents. They have to remain here each year for five or six months and even then they are not at the end of their public duties. When they return home they still have to occupy themselves with public affairs, they have to give up their time to their constituents and study the problems of the country, and also prepare themselves for the work of the following session. In fa-ct the interests of a member's constituents follow him wherever he goes, during the recess as well as when he is attending the parliamentary sessions in Ottawa. Expenses also are much heavier than they were. Twenty years ago I could travel along the -coast in my constituency for fifty or sixty dollars. To-day I -could no't even go to the next district for that amount. Automobiles are very nice and handy and very swift, but they are an expensive accommodation. The public understand all these considerations, and so in treating this matter let us not tinker with it. If the Prime Minister can see his way clear to bring in a measure providing for an increase in indemnity I will, perhaps for the first time, vote in favour -of the Government.


Charles Gavan Power: I
have followed the debate with considerable attention an-d interest throughout its course and from what -I can gather, generally speaking, it is admitted on all sides, even by the Prime Minister himself, that the present indemnity is too low. As my hon. friend from Fronten-ac (Mr. Edwards) has said, it is no longer an indemnity, it must be regarded as a salary. I also -understood from the Prime Minister that he was of opinion that members should express their views as to whether or not the time was opportune for an increase in the indemmity, and as to whether we should increase it at the present moment when there is considerable unrest in the country, at a time when we have been obliged-as the Prime Minister very justly said-to refuse some very extraordinary demands on the part of the returned soldier. With regard to the unrest prevailing in the country the Prime Minister, of course, is more closely in touch with different sections of the Dominion than 1 am, and he would probably kno-w more about the subject than myself. Nevertheless I do not know of any unrest through-

out the country owing to public bodies having increased salaries or indemnities. Indeed in every municipality wherever we look there have been increases accorded either to the councillors, or to the maigistrates, or to the Boards of Control, or to the sheriffs-in facts to every public man that I know of. We have been told to-night that the Alberta Legislature has increased the indemnity to their members, but we have not heard from any hon. member representing an Alberta constituency-and he would be thoroughly familiar with local conditions-that unrest has increased in that province as a consequence. The member from New Brunswick (Mr. Turgeon) told us that their provincial indemnity had been doubled, but he has not heard a word of any increased unrest on that account. And speaking as a member from the province of Quebec, I can assure .hon. gentlemen that I am quite satisfied that ninety per cent of the people of that province do not know that the provincial indemnity was increased, and they do not care.


Robert Laird Borden: When was the increase made in the Province of Quebec?


Charles Gavan Power: In the last session of the legislature increased the indemnity from $1,500 to $2,000, -and the people of the province are so satisfied with the Government that they do not object to the increase,-in fact, they do not care. If the Prime .Minister of the Dominion would take a leaf from the book of the Premier of the province of Quebec, and feel that the country is so satisfied with his Administration that they will not object to increasing the salaries of hon. members, I think we will all be satisfied.
The Prime Minister has also told us that there was a great unrest owing to the fact that we have been obliged to refuse certain demands of the .soldiers. Well, for the past two days I have been on my feet to a very considerable extent on behalf of the soldiers. I have fought as hard as I could for their cause, and I think since I have been in the House I have, been identified to a large extent with the returned soldier movement. And I am quite willing, Mr. Speaker, to take my chances with the soldiers; I am willing to go before any soldier audience and plead the case for an increased indemnity, I do not care where the audience is, whether in Toronto, in Calgary, or anywhere else in the Dominion. I think the ordinary returned soldier is a sensible enough man to know that we cannot come

here and spend six months of our time for $2,50D.
I have listened with considerable attention to my hon. friend from Prontenac (Mr. Edwards). He argued very sagely that we had increased pensions, we had increased the salaries of civil servants because we were under the impression that the present times were abnormal. We are passing through a crisis which is prevalent all over the world, and in dealing with pensions and with civil service questions we have considered that the time would arrive when the cost of living would not be so high. So we reached the conclusion that our civil servants and our soldiers who were pensioned should, in order to be able to meet the high cost of living, obtain something, additional to their salaries, and that something additional we have decided to call a bonus. I think if the Prime Minister were to take our present situation into serious consideration, he would see that we also are feeling the crisis in the same way as the soldiers and the civil servants, and that our indemnity of $2,500, which the Prime Minister said would in 1905 have been considered quite a good indemnity, is as he himself admits at the present moment too low. Therefore, why not supplement our indemnity during the period of crisis by some such system of bonus as we are giving to our civil servants and our soldiers?
I would suggest that if the Prime Minister considered the request for a bonus of $1,500 is to much, let him give us $1,000; but I would not for one moment agree to $500, because that would be almost useless. I would think that a bonus of $1,000 for this session might very well be granted, and, if next session it is considered the right thing to do, another bonus- can be given. By next year members of Parliament will have had time to hear from their constituents and those members who feel that their constituents are not favourable to this bonus or increase would next session be able to tell the Prime Minister, "I am afraid my people will not want it; therefore I cannot vote for the bonus." So many are convinced at the present moment that the people in their constituencies are in favour of this increase that I do not -see why the Government should not grant it. If it is granted for one session only, at the end of next session the Government will see public opinion reflected through the representatives of public opinion in this House, and if that public opinion is- opposed to the bonus, the Government will know it. If it is in favour of a bonus the Government will know it.

But I cannot believe that the Government to-day isi not aware that public opinion is in favour of an increased indemnity after the opinions that have been expressed in this House to-night.


Mr. H. H. STEVENS (Centre Vancouver) :: I feel, Mr. .Speaker, that it is
my duty to express myself very briefly on this 'subject. The question seems to me to narrow itself down to the simple proposition:	Is this thing right and fair?
If it is, the House should have no hesitancy in granting an increased indemnity. I do not think that any reasonable person will question the necessity or the desirability of increasing the indemnity of hon. members. I do not- wish to say that this applies particularly to those of us who come from ,a great distance, but I can assure the House that attendance here is a. very hard and severe burden upon those of us whose homes are far removed from the capital. It does not lessen the fairness of the increase for a great many hon. gentlemen who have expressed their views to-night; bu+ if their views are reasonable -and I certainly think they are

then the argument for the increase applies with double force to those hon. members who come from a greater distance and spend all their time either sitting in the House or waiting over the tedious and exceedingly lonesome week-ends in this city for the business of the House to go on.
Another point I wish to emphasize is that the business of Canada has increased, and is still increasing at a very rapid rate, and that the importance of the office of Member of Parliament is increasing in equal ratio, and that therefore the indemnity should be increased accordingly. This question should not be looked at from the angle of the least deserving .member. There may be a few hon. members who do not pay very close attention to the business of the House; but the merit of this case for an increased indemnity should not be measured by the attendance that these members give to the public business; it should be measured by the average devotion to duty of the members of the House as a whole. And on that ground I contend that the increase should be given.
The objection is urged that we are going to grant this increase to ourselves, and that it is not quPe fitting and proper for us to take this course. 'Mr. Speaker, I submit this answer to that objection: Who is going to grant this increase to us
if we do not grant it to ourselves? It is our duty to formulate the rules of the House; to determine how the business of the House shall be transacted, how long we shall sit and all the rest of it; and it is our duty to decide what compensation members shall receive. So, speaking for myself I have no scruples whatever in granting to myself an increased indemnity. I have no hesitation in saying, either to this House or to the country at large, that I consider my services here worth at least the sum suggested, namely, $4,000 a year. From my experience of eleven sessions here I know that my duties are not finished when the [DOT]House prorogues. When I go back to my city I have to keep my office open at least three parts of the time for the purpose of attending to public business, and my house, as is the case with every other member, is besieged by persons claiming attention, largely fn connection with public business. *So that the end of the session does not see the end of our duties.
Now, another question is whether the time is opportune; in fact, that is the crux of the whole question, especially in the eyes of the right hon. Prime Minister. Sir, I do not know of a more opportune time to deal with this question than now. We could with equity have dealt with the matter two or three years ago, though I grant you that the time was then, perhaps, not opportune. But the difficulty which prevailed then is largely removed, and the time certainly is opportune to deal with this question. It is before the House; it has 'been discussed with a great deal of freedom. Many hon. members, 'Sir, have frankly expressed their opinion, though there has been one notable exception. Two or tlpee members have expressed themselves .as against the proposal; all others are strongly in favour of it. As I say, there has been one outstanding exception; the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), still refuses to give the House the benefit of his views. I repeat, Sir, that the time as opportune; that the equity of the case is demonstrated. To me the question simply is this: Is it right and fair that the indemnity should be increased? If it is right and fair, it will bear all the scrutiny that the public may care to give it. If the Government will introduce a measure, as I believe it is their duty to do, I will give it my Unqualified support and take my full share of the responsibility in regard thefeto.


Mr. R. H. BUTTS (Gape Breton South and Richmond):: Under the rules of the

House, Mr. Speaker, has the Senate1 power, if a Bill providing for increased! indemnity is passed, to throw that Bill out? If they have it would be futile for us. to go any further.
Mr. JOHN A. MAHAB/G (Maple Creek): Mr. Speaker, I would like very 'briefly to state my position on this question, and I think I can express the feeling of a very large majority of the people in the western provinces. Personally, this matter is not new to me. The different farmers' organizations in Western Canada have an official organ which is published in Winnipeg, as you all know. The editorial columns of that organ have for years contended that the indemnity to members of the federal House was entirely inadequate, having regard to the position that they hold and to the effect that the performance of their public duties has on their other occupations, whatever they may be. This organ has no hesitation in stating that the indemnity should be increased; and if I remember rightly, they did- not stop at $4,000; the amount which they suggested was $5,000-and that was some years ago, when the high cost of living had not commenced to be so pronounced' as it is now. We in Western Canada, I think, do not look at these matters as they are looked at by some people in other parts of the country; at any rate, that is true in some cases. We have different large organizations there, and on the occasion of an annual meeting of the shareholders of any of these large organizations the criticisms of the salaries paid to the managers is not that they are too1 high but that they have been too low; the contention made is that the salaries paid to these officials should be as large as those paid to persons carrying on similar work in other like organizations.
I may say that this question of increased indemnity arose at a mixed meeting which I attended. The meeting was held in a fairly large town and the hall was packed. There are always some in such an audience who think they can strike a popular chord; there happened to be such a character in the audience on this occasion. I do not know whether or not he was frying to trip me up, but he asked me what my opinion was in the matter of the indemnity that was being paid to members of Parliament. I took it for granted that he was referring to members of the Federal Parliament, as I believe he was. I immediately took up the challenge and stated my position very clearly. I said that in my opinion the

members of the Federal House were veiy much underpaid; that they should be receiving $4,000 instead of $2,500. That was taken up from one end of the hall to the other and the suggestion was received with enthusiasm-as great enthusiasm asi any ordinary question could 'be received; so much so that the gentleman who sprung the question, got up and said that he was referring to the Provincial House, not to the Federal House. Now, I believe that is the feeling generally throughout Western 'Canada. We believe, and the people believe, that the "labourer is worthy of his hire." So far as criticism is concerned, I have nothing to fear; I am quite prepared to defend my action anywhere in my own constituency or in my own province.


Mr. T. M. M. TWEEDIE (Calgary West):: just and it is only right that some of us this evening should plead for them.
Mr. I). A. LAFORTUNE (Jacques-Car-tier) (Translation).-Mr. Speaker, I beg you to accord me a few minutes in which I may express my opinion on this question of the increase of indemnity of members and of (She salaries of judges. As the bon. member who has just resumed his seat says, 'the judges certainly need ian increase in their salaries. I know several judges who Rave been obliged to resign because of their insufficient remuneration. They were right. Several have resigned in order to accept other more lucrative positions. I know judges at Montreal who died leaving their families poor and whose widows were obliged to keep boarding houses in order to live and to continue the educaton of the children. The judges complain, rightly, that they do not receive the salaries that they are entitled to. Even the ministers of the Crown do not do themselves justice. They should have much higher remuneration. Some bank officials are paid much higher salaries than the judges are receiving. This is unfair. The men who direct the destinies of the country, who 'are at the head of a government such as that of Canada should have a reasonable salary, and reasonable indemnities, in order to be able to consecrate all their time to the business of the country and to do justice to their families and themselves. The senators, as well as the members, should have an increase in their indemnity.
To be a member of Parliament is very nice, very fine, but I assure you-that one is often called upon to subscribe to all kinds of things. At the time I had the honour to be the member for the county of Montcalm I was fairly well off; I was at a little distance from the county where almost no schools, convents or. churches were built for a long time, hut when I was elected for the county of Jacques Cartier things changed. Those who represented this county before me had been rich men, powerful men, and they had been forced to make considerable sacrifices. The late lamented Mr. Laflamme ruined himself for that- county, where he spent hundreds of thousands of dollars; the late Desire Girouard, afterwards judge of the Supreme Court, also spent considerable sums there; the Hon F. Guimond spent exfhorbitant amounts; the Hon. Mr. Boyer was obliged to make great sacrifices. He is now a senator, and I can swear that he was obliged to 
pay dearly in order to represent this county worthily. Your humble servant, who is neither rich nor poor, has, since he has had the honour of representing the county of Jacques Cartier, been forced to subscribe to all kinds of things. He must aid the ploughing competitions, and at the next competition, which will take place at Macdonald College, your humble servant, as a member, has been invited to take part, but as a subscription has been requested I shall have to fork it out.
If a member of Parliament is not ready to give he is considered mean, g miser, and sometimes even worse than that. At county fairs Mr. Member must come forward with his subscription. At college closings Mr. Member is invited to present a medal-and the medals must be provided for closing exercises of convents, the member is requested to be good enough to send a medal, and the medal must foe sent. Unless you have heen present at the ceremonies of the academies and schools and send them a little gift you may be certain that at the next political contest you will be reproached with your remissness.
A MEMBER: And. tire euchre parties?


Mr. LAFORTUNE:: Ah, the euchre parties, they come very often. One must help lacrosse clubs, musical clubs; a present must- be the acknowledgment of the wedding announcements sent to the member, and a wreath in answer to the death notices; he must go to the funerals of the old maids and old bachelors. The first communion of the little girls and boys costs the member something, there is no way out of it. If he does not give, it is laid up against him, If a poor man loses a horse or meets with an accident, the member must pay; when there is a fire and no insurance, as happens often enough, the member must subscribe something. When statues are unveiled-lately two Sacred Heart statues were erected

the member must pay; and he must be present at the tombolas -.and stand the consequences.
A MEMBER:	And the christenings of
bells?


David Arthur Lafortune: I am not forgetting
them. The member must chip in at the euchre parties. He must aid the poor, the unfortunate and the sick; he must go as a god-father to the christenings of bells; if the crops appear threatened, it is up to the member to have high masses sung; appeal for aid is made to the prominent people first, and it is always the member
/

who receives the first visit; "Mr. Member, we have come to you first, as we did not wish to appear to lack in politeness towards you." To all the varieties of guards the member must give, something; to the churches that are being built, there has to be presented the Stations of the Cross, or one of them, or anything else, for the church or the presbytery, and once more the member has to give.
Mr. Speaker, I should never get through, were I to go into every detail. It may be thought a very grand thing to be a member, but the member rather feels like the poor lamb whose fleece is not his own. Now we remain here four or five months in the year; and the session is barely wound up when this public servant must tour from village to village through each parish and give an aocount of his doings. Yet it's fine, one enjoys it, and' one is proud. When one is defeated, one is very sorry. But we should have a largeT indemnity, so we can give more generously. The electors don't care much what we do, but they care very much what we give them.
I can assure you that not one elector will, rise in a public meeting to protest against his representative having voted to increase the indemnity. Those who are timorous, and slaves to fear are never very successful. I tremble for them at the next contest if they have not dared to ask for what was just and legitimate. I ask the Iron, leader' of the Opposition to be firm, to be courageous, not to fear to suppport our request. I say to him, you should respect the wish of those who made you their leader, and it was the province of Quebec, in a large measure, that did it. I ask you to screw up your courage, to be firm. All that your followers ask is that you will not be afraid to express your opinion and we shall stand by you, we shall not fear to back your policy; but stick to us, support the request that we make; be just to us. I ,am convinced that the Kt. Hon. Prime Minister is certainly going to acceed to the desire of his supporters. He will not be afraid to express his opinion, for he realizes what is the wish, the ardent desire, of his companions in arms. Once more I ask you. hon. leader of the Opposition, not to fear to back our request, since it is the unanimous wish of the members who support you.	1
I shall vote in favour of the increasing of the indemnity. I should like to see it increased to at least $5,000, but if one cannot have $5,000, one must be satisfied with
$4,000. I am not more in need of this increase of indemnity than the other hon. gentlemen; for I have saved some money and put by something for a rainy day, but I am bTave enough to voice my opinion in the support of the proposal, because it is but just, and justice must prevail.
, Mr. G. B. NICHOLSON (Algoma East): I wish to say a word on this .subject lest silence be misconstrued. I confess at the .outset that I have had some difficulty in .reaching a conclusion on the question of ,an increased indemnity at the present time, .but when I heard the Prime Minister say here to-night hat in his judgment the present indemnity was insufficient and it was .right that it should be increased, I reached the conclusion that it is always right to< do right. If that is the fact, and I believe it is in the main, then the Government should bring in a resolution, or an Estimate, or a Bill if necessary, to provide for (an increase in the indemnity^ either a direct increase or by way of 'bonus. It might be more in keeping with the feeling throughout the country if the increase was given in the form of a bonus. There is one thought I wish particularly to refer to, and it is that there may be, there undoubtedly are members of this House who may be in such a financial position that they can come here without any great personal sacrifice. If because they are in that position they would oppose an increase, knowing that there are other members not so favourably situated as themselves, their action in that regard could in my judgment only be characterized as in the highest degree 'selfish. There is .a way by which any hon^ member-and I would commend this to the hon. member for Kent- (Mr. McCoig) if he were here-can square his conscience in this matter. It is not .absolutely necessary' that we should accept the increase if it is granted. If a man feels that he can get along without the increase, he need not draw it. In that way he would not be preventing the man who is not in a position to serve his country at the remuneration that is now given, from getting an increase.
I would like to commend what was said by my friend from one of the Montreal divisions. If the present scale of remuneration is maintained, Parliament is going to resolve itself into one of two things-either a rich man's club, or a place to which a type of men will come who cannot adequately represent a constituency in this country unless they find some means of

getting money that a representative of the people should not get.
i Reference has been made to the judges of the different courts to-night, and I fully agree that if we are going to get the right type of man we must pay the right remuneration. The .whole public service of this country suffers as the result of the public not being willing to pay men what they .would receive in the service of a private corporation. When we say that a minister of the Crown who is administering one o.f the departments of State is worth no more than a departmental manager of a department store, I think the mere statement is sufficient to show the ridiculousness of the present situation. There are plenty of men managing a small business in this country who are getting more remuneration that the Prime Minister of' Canada is getting from the people of Canada. There are men ni every walk of life drawing not what would he termed a salary, but mere wages, who are getting more than members of the Government who are administering departments and working, not eight, hut often eighteen hours a day at a tremendous sacrifice. The first move to be made is to. give reasonable remuneration to members of the Cabinet. I have no hesitation in commending to the Government an increase in the remuneration paid to members of this House. I am ready to justify the position before my constituents, because I know that if J have any qualms of conscience I have the remedy in my own bands, as every member has. No man can bring bis family to Ottawa and live here as he should during the session and get away and break even, not to speak of the business he has to do for his constituency during the rest of the yeaT. And on the other hand a man from the far West or the far East cannot afford to leave his .family behind and maintain two homes during the session. I think the country should be willing to give reasonable remuneration to the man who is willing to give reasonable service.


Mr.  W. D. OOWAN@Regina: Lest I be accused of cowardice I wish to express approval of the suggestion that the indemnity of members of Parliament be increased. However, let me say at once that, like most hon. gentlemen, whether the indemnity be increased or not I propose to give the best service I possibly can while I am here. There is no attempt, as has been suggested in some quarters, at strike on the part of any one if the indemnity is not increased.

But it seems to me that we shall be all in a position to give much better service to the country if the indemnity is increased. At least, if hon. members are all like me they certainly will be in a better position to serve the country well. I know that when I go home after attending this session, having been here every day since the. 26th of February, and take my wife and family back with me, I shall not have a dollar left, and it will simply mean that I shall have to get down to' my business and devote every spare moment of my time between now and the next session if I am to keep my family at all. I do not think that that is a position any member of Parliament should find himself in. The Prime Minister to-night took a perfectly proper stand when he said-I am not giving his exact words but what I say is the purport of his remarks-that we must pay some heed to the state of the public mind and not do anything that would aggravate the present irritated feelings of the people. That is absolutely right. The public mind is no doubt irritated to-day. But why? It is irritated because certain factions in the country have been deliberately misrepresenting every public man whether he be a Government supporter a Liberal or a Farmers' representative. 'Every man who holds any public office to-day is misrepresented before the people. In view of this fact who can or will better allay the feeling which has been aroused as a result of that misrepresentation than members of Parliament? It is our duty when we go home to tell the people the God-given truth not only about our friends but about our enemies on the other side and if I give the people the God-given truth as I say, I am going to tell them there are on the other side some pretty decent fellows, even if they are always wrong. I will tell them that from what I have seen in my experience, the members in this House are absolutely straight, notwithstanding the allegations of all the Hicks and Speers that go around the country bringing charges of dishonesty against people. I have never seen any dishonesty in Parliament, and I have been in this House three years; and I think it is about time that I was in a position to go and tell my constituents what I know about the situation. I believe that if we are in that position where we can tell the people the truth we shall more quickly allay the feeling of irritation about which

the Prime Minister spoke to-night than would he possible in any other way. As to the method to be adopted, ,1 do not care very much what is done. I think that probably there is a good deal in the suggestion that this increase should be made by way of a bonus instead of a fixed increase in the indemnity. We have to meet the conditions of the day, whatever they are, and we should meet those conditions in the best possible way. Therefore, if a bonus is more agreeable to the Government it is perfectly satisfactory to me, and then next session Parliament of that day can deal with the situation as it then finds it; and if it is desired-and probably it is- that the people should be consulted before a permanent increase is made, well and good. We shall have met conditions and placed members in a position where they can deal with the questions of the day and take the people into their confidence, explaining to them the whole situation. In that way the problem might be partly solved.


Mr. DONALD SUTHERLAND (South Oxford):: I have refrained from expressing my opinion with regard to this question either outside the House or here to-night so far. I may say that I have had several reasons for 'being non-committal, not because I did not think that the members of this House were being underpaid but because I was in a different position from a good many other hon. members. I have found it possible at every week end to visit my home and keep in touch with my business, and I can appreciate the difficulties which those who are not so fortunately situated have had to contend with. Were I not so able eo to attend to my business I do not believe it would be possible for me to continue tin public life. I quite agree with the remarks made by the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Nicholson), that under present conditions, if the indemnity of hon. members remains as it is, Parliament may become a rich man's club; and I would add to that the fear that it might also become a club for those who have no family ties. There are demands upon the public man of to-day that were not made in the past. It may be eaid by some that we are nearing the end of the time for which we received our mandate from the people and that it might not be advisable to make this increase at the present time. Possibly there is some ground for a contention of that klind. So far as I am personally concerned,
I believe it is a laudable ambition in any man to have a desire to represent in Parliament the people among whom he lives. I appreciate the difficulties whch the Prime Minister sees in present conditions, with the feeling of unrest that undoubtedly prevails, with the need for economy in every branch of the public service, and the necessity for bringing about that_economy; and there may be a feeling that it is not judicious on our part to ask for an increase at this time. Reference has been made to the necessity of increasing the salaries of judges and ministers. I would point out in that respect that ministers and judges are not differently situated from many members of the House, whose business is absolutely lost during the time which they devote to Parliament. Many of them make ae great sacrifices as members of the judiciary or of the Government, and for that reason I do not think there should be any distinction. I am not going to urge very strongly that any step should be taken at this session, but I certainly will not stand in the way of anything being done, because I realize that many members come vast distances, bringing their families, and when they remain here six months or eo it means an enormous sacrifice to them. I therefore do not believe it is in the interests of good government or in the interests of the country that a condition of that kind should exist. If you do not desire to have only very wealthy people represent the public in Parliament, or people with some motives that are not in the interests of the country at large, some step will have to be taken in the direction suggested. But a continuance of the present condition is likely to bring about such a result.
Motion agreed to and the House went into Committee of Supply, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Labour-Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, $35,000.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think we
have put in a hard day's work and the minister might report progress.


Mr. DOHERTY:: I think that it might
be desirable to report progress.
Progress reported.
On motion of Rt. Hon. Mr. Doherty the House adjourned at 1.05 a.m. (Thursday).

Thursday, June 24, 1920.